Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Oral Answers to Questions — Housing Association Rents

Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average housing association rent.

Mr. Wicks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average rent for a housing association dwelling in 1978–79 and at the latest available date.

The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): The average housing association rent in England on 31 March 1993 was £34.03 per week.
Although the data were not collected on a comparable basis, the average housing association registered fair rent in England and Wales in 1978–79 was £10.08 per week.

Mr. Miller: Does the Minister accept that, following the proposed cuts in the Housing Corporation budget, those rents will increase significantly—probably well ahead of inflation? That must be added to the difficulties facing local authorities, particularly lean and well-managed authorities such as Ellesmere Port and Neston. Does the Minister accept that, if those factors are added together, his policies will have dire consequences for people who need low-cost affordable homes? Will he reverse his policies and act positively in the interests of tenants both of housing associations and of local authorities?

Sir George Young: I find it hard to take seriously the remarks that the hon. Gentleman has just made. On Monday, the House was invited to vote to give an extra £213 million to my Department, part of which would go to the Housing Corporation budget. I regret to have to tell the House that the hon. Gentleman voted against the provision of that sum. Against that background, I am surprised that he has the nerve to ask about resources for the Housing Corporation.

Mr. Wicks: Given the average rent figures, and not least the higher figures in many metropolitan areas, does the Minister believe that ordinary families can now afford to be in unsubsidised housing association accommodation? Is not the effect of the policy to drive up housing benefit expenditure? How does that square with the declared policy of the Secretary of State for Social Security to drive down such expenditure?

Sir George Young: I believe that £34 a week is a reasonable rent for housing association property, especially as so much of it is of good quality. The hon. Gentleman must ask himself a question. If he wants to keep rents down, he will find that there are fewer homes being built to meet the needs of those who have a housing problem.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Is not the real issue the speed with which we move towards market rents, to ensure that any assistance through housing benefit is given directly to those who need it, rather than through subventions to the corporation, which are spread among rich and poor alike?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. We have made it clear that we believe that a more effective use of public resources is to move away from indiscriminate bricks and mortar subsidies towards more sensitively directed personal subsidies. It inevitably follows that the housing benefit bill will rise, but we believe that it is a more sensible use of public resources and will enable us to build more homes.

Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how proud we in Teesside are of the new housing association rented properties that are coming on stream on the Teesdale sites? Those have been built with the assistance of Teesside development corporation as part of 155,000 properties that have come into being since the general election as a direct result of Government policy.

Sir George Young: The House will be delighted to hear of the good-quality accommodation that is being provided in my hon. Friend's constituency. He is right to point out that the number of units provided by the Housing Corporation have exceeded by 25,000 the commitment that we gave at the general election.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister reconsider his earlier answers and tell the House the figures that the National Federation of Housing Associations supplied to his Department recently, which show that the average rent for all housing association lettings in England is £43.86 a week and that the average for new lettings, which is obviously the most crucial figure, is no less than £51.12 a week? Will the Minister stop misleading the House with figures that are not accurate and tell us the truth? Those rents are not affordable.

Sir George Young: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the answer that I gave to Questions 1 and 2 was incorrect. They were the correct figures. The figure for new properties is, indeed, about £51 per week. That is not the figure that is paid by the vast majority of housing association tenants. Those tenants who are invited to pay the newer rents are eligible for housing benefit if they do not have the income with which to pay.

Oral Answers to Questions — Construction Industry

Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken within his Department to support his sponsorship of the construction industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): We have established a construction sponsorship directorate committed to doing everything possible to ensure, in partnership with the construction industry, that United Kingdom construction is as successful as humanly possible.

Mr. Heald: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the unemployment figures announced today showing a fall of 39,000? Does he agree that that is excellent news for the unemployed and their families? Does he agree one reason for the fall is the recovery in the construction industry shown yesterday by the increase in orders at home and by the fact that exports in the construction industry are running at £6 billion a year? Does he agree that more could be done to help our construction exporters? What exactly will the directorate do?

Mr. Baldry: We all have every right to be proud that British construction skills, experience and quality are in such demand throughout the world. That means jobs at home. This year, together with the industry, our construction export promotion division is promoting trade missions, task forces and numerous country-specific events to ensure that United Kingdom construction wins as much business in the world as possible.

Mr. Pike: In the Prime Minister's references yesterday to the construction industry and particularly to housing, was not he ill-advised to refer to an increase in housing construction, when last year's figures show that construction was at an all-time low of 155,922 new starts? Will the Government give the industry the news that it wants to hear and say that some of the capital receipts can be used and that mandatory grants will continue?

Mr. Baldry: I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to the most recent statement by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Only days ago, it said:
As confidence among buyers grows, we are experiencing a heartening buzz of genuine interest in many areas. As spring unfolds, the market will continue to develop. The economic soil is looking fertile and capable of sustaining growth. New house starts are going up at a very fast rate indeed.

Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although I am delighted to see any resurgence in the construction industry, my constituents will not be pleased to see construction in the shape of new supermarkets in two places in Oadby in my constituency? Will my hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to bear that in mind when he considers the applications that will be on his desk before long?

Mr. Baldry: I commend to every Member of Parliament planning policy guidance note 6, which gives new planning guidance on out-of-town retail developments. It is an excellent publication.

Oral Answers to Questions — Energy Saving Trust

Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current budget of the Energy Saving Trust.

Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the funding of the Energy Saving Trust.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): The Energy Saving Trust is an independent organisation. Funds for its schemes will come from a variety of sources. I understand that its budget for 1994–95 is currently under discussion.

Mr. Barron: Will the Minister comment on the evidence given by British Gas to the Select Committee on the Environment last year that its funding of the Energy Saving Trust would be £2 million last year, £10 million this year and even hundreds of millions in years to come? In the past 24 hours, I have learnt that, in seven days' time, the Energy Saving Trust will give notice that it intends to cancel the gas condensing boiler scheme, which is the most effective thing that it has done towards reaching the Rio limits on emissions. Why have the Government changed the regulator of British Gas, and why has that regulator sought to change the opinion of British Gas on the E factor in gas pricing and, therefore, cut the funding of the Energy Saving Trust?

Mr. Atkins: There are a number of questions there and I am aware of your caution in these matters, Madam Speaker. I do not want to answer too many questions from one Opposition Member. Perhaps I can pick the one to which I know the answer, which is that the appointment of the regulator is not a matter for me.

Mr. Dafis: Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, it is clear that the Energy Saving Trust is in big trouble, having had its primary source of finance cut off. Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that, if it survives, the efficient delivery of its programmes will depend on obtaining adequate information about energy efficiency, not least in the domestic sector? In that regard, may I draw the Minister's attention to the Energy Conservation Bill which was presented by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)? That Bill would ensure that such information would be available because it requires local authorities to carry out an exhaustive audit of the energy efficiency of domestic properties. Will the Minister give an absolute undertaking that the Government will do nothing to undermine that Bill on Report?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Energy Saving Trust will be without funds, but that is incorrect. We already have a commitment for some £25 million from the electricity companies. That means that, at least until the discussions about the future of the British Gas contribution, plenty of money will be available to provide for the continuance of the Energy Saving Trust.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Is not my hon. Friend confused by the signals from Opposition Members in wanting not to burn coal when gas was coming in? All their policy papers suggest that we should increase energy prices enormously through carbon taxes, but, of course, they voted against VAT on fuel.

Mr. Atkins: Like many Conservative Members, I am constantly confused about what the Opposition represent on energy matters.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Energy Saving Trust and the Government should look closely at the use of energy-efficient lighting, which would greatly cut the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere and save people a considerable amount of money that would more than cover VAT on electricity?

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raised this matter for the benefit of all hon. Members in the recent debate on his ten-minute Bill. I was pleased to be here to listen to him and I entirely agree that the message that we all can take is that energy-efficient lightbulbs are much better than existing ones and that the more that we can use them, the better it will be for all concerned.

Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate the Minister on his characteristic candour in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). There is a serious dispute between the Government and the Energy Saving Trust and the Director General of Gas Supply about the director general's precise role in this. Although the Minister is not responsible for appointing her, does not he agree that it would be a good idea to sit down, run through the difficulties and try to resolve them, because the Energy Saving Trust's role is clearly being prejudiced by a lack of clarity about her role in the matter?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is right and fair to draw attention to this concern. It is clearly a matter that we did not anticipate because at the moment OFFER—the Office of Electricity Regulation—does not see a particular problem. The problem that has been highlighted by the Ofgas regulator, Miss Clare Spottiswode, was unexpected, and the matter is being discussed through my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry to see whether there is a way round it. Failing that, we may have to consider other ways by which the matter may be addressed, and that might involve legislation.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware that this country spends about £50 billion a year on energy and that the Energy Efficiency Office has estimated that we could save approximately 20 per cent. of that, or £10 billion. My hon. Friend is also aware that his Department has set the Energy Saving Trust a target for carbon reduction of 2.5 million tonnes to meet our Rio target by the year 2000. To do that, the Energy Saving Trust will need to spend about £400 million a year. As well as benefiting consumers, it will cost them only an extra 1.5 per cent., but will benefit our balance of payments by £300 million and create up to 40,000 jobs. Will the Minister confirm that that is the sort of target and the sort of agenda that he will set the Energy Saving Trust?

Mr. Atkins: Yes, Madam.

Oral Answers to Questions — Coal Mining Effluent

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about pollution of waterways with coal mining effluent.

Mr. Atkins: Discharges from coal mines in England and Wales are subject to regulation by the National Rivers Authority. It is for the operators and owners of those

mines, in consultation with the National Rivers Authority, to determine what measures are necessary to avoid pollution.

Mr. Hain: Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding his factually accurate answer, many hon. Members are frustrated by the buck-passing between British Coal and the National Rivers Authority? Is he aware that the Neath canal has recently been declared ecologically dead because of mine pollution? The Neath river is now heavily polluted and the Pelenna river in my constituency is regarded as the most polluted river in Britain? Will his Department please institute an urgent examination of the problem in conjunction with British Coal, its successors and the National Rivers Authority and will he make a statement in the House about this growing problem, which will get worse as more mines close.

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman thinks that my answer is factually correct. That in itself is an achievement. [Laughter.] I should perhaps have said that it was an achievement for the hon. Gentleman to have recognised it. Under the Water Resources Act 1991, the NRA has powers to prosecute any offence involving pollution from mines. In the particular case that the hon. Gentleman raises—the River Pelenna in his constituency —I understand that the NRA and West Glamorgan county council have joined forces to undertake a £1 million project aimed at restoring the quality of the river to support wildlife and removing the discoloration caused by mine water. If there are any other points relating to individual constituencies, I suggest that hon. Members take them up directly with the NRA.

Mr. Batiste: Does not the question highlight the need for debate in the House on the environmental impact of the coal industry, preferably before the Coal Industry Bill returns to the House on Report and Third Reading? Perhaps my hon. Friend would discuss the matter with his colleagues and suggest to them that there is considerable feeling on both sides of the House that such a debate should take place.

Mr. Atkins: I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is aware of my hon. Friend's concern.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister also take account of Coalite, which produces coke from coal and the fact that the dioxin effluent coming out of the factory into the River Doe Lea is 1,000 times above the requisite safety level? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that that is stopped? Is the National Rivers Authority doing anything about it? It seems rather laggardly in its action.

Mr. Atkins: I am very disturbed if, as I am sure it is, what the hon. Gentleman says about that river is true. I will ensure that the attention of the NRA is drawn to that case and that if action needs to be taken urgently it will be.

Oral Answers to Questions — Council Tax

Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the correlation between political control and the top and bottom 10 council taxes so far declared.

The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): Of the 10 councils that have fixed the


highest council taxes, seven are Labour controlled, two others have Labour county councils, which are the principal precepting authorities, while I understand that Liverpool is split between rival Labour factions.

Mr. Duncan: will my hon. Friend confirm that band for band—A for A and B for B, right up to H for H—Conservative councils cost less? Will he also confirm that while the Labour party continues to play its childish games, the Conservatives will stand and deliver better local government?

Mr. Curry: It is true: those who live in Conservative council areas and whose properties are in band A pay less than they would under Labour. Those who live in Conservative council areas and are in band B pay less than they would under Labour. It applies right through the bands. Whether one has modest means and lives in a modest house, whether one has a middle income and lives in a middle-income house or even if one is relatively well-off and in band H, one will always pay less under the Conservatives than under Labour or the Liberals.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State's press release issued this morning recognised that Liverpool's band C figure does not represent what most people in Liverpool will be paying and that although there will be an increase, that is almost entirely due to the unfairness of the standard spending assessment for the city? Will he consider that a fairer way of comparing council tax levels is to look at averages? Liverpool's average of £550 compares favourably with councils such as Wokingham and Ribble Valley, both of which are Conservative controlled.

Mr. Curry: I cannot think of a less intelligible way of comparing council taxes than using averages, for the simple reason that no one pays an average council tax. Everyone pays one band from A to H and that enables us to make a direct comparison. What matters is how much one pays and one pays less under Conservative-controlled authorities than under Labour-controlled authorities, including Liverpool.

Sir Anthony Durant: Does my hon. Friend agree that council tax levels would be much lower if Labour-controlled councils, such as Islington, Liverpool and Manchester, cleared their enormous debts so that they could use some of the capital receipts?

Mr. Curry: It is true that if councils collect their debts, council house rents and taxes, that money can go through into services. That has given councils that have improved their tax collection rates much room for manoeuvre this year. That is one of the keys to good services, not an optional extra. It is part of delivering a good service to council tax payers, and Conservative-controlled councils do it best.

Mr. Straw: A moment ago, in the hearing of the House, the Minister said that the use of average household bills per dwelling was a less intelligible way of comparing what people were spending. If that is so, why did the Department of the Environment, in its press release last March, use average household bills per dwelling? Will the Minister also explain why the research department of Conservative central office, in a brief dated last March, also used the average council tax per dwelling? Did Conservative central office use those figures before it discovered that

average household council tax bills per dwelling are £40 lower in Labour-controlled areas than they are in Conservative-controlled areas and that, whether locally or nationally, the Conservative party costs people more?

Mr. Curry: We are clearly getting under the hon. Gentleman's skin. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to demonstrate that the council tax paid in any one of the eight bands is lower in a Labour-controlled authority than in a Conservative-controlled authority. He cannot do it. A council with houses predominantly in the lower bands will have a lower average council tax than a council with houses predominantly in the higher bands. That is a matter of statistics, not politics. The hon. Gentleman cannot escape from the basic fact that Labour-controlled councils are setting higher bills. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I can read to him the 10 councils with the lowest bills, and he will not find a Labour-controlled council among them.

Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend mentioned the high levels of uncollected rents and council taxes in many Labour-controlled areas. When will the Government do something to force those councils to collect the rents that they should be collecting on behalf of the rest of the population?

Mr. Curry: If councils collect rents and taxes, they can spend more on services. A lack of services is the result of incompetence on the part of the councils.

Oral Answers to Questions — Rent Increases

Mr. Hoon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the relative rate of rent rises in the public and private sectors.

Sir George Young: Rents in all sectors have risen during the past few years. Public sector rents have increased to bear a closer relationship to the value of the accommodation being provided. That reflects, in part, our policy of moving away from direct subsidies to suppliers, towards paying personal subsidies to tenants to ensure that help goes to those who really need it.
Deregulation of rents in the private rented sector since 1988 has enabled landlords to achieve a more realistic return on their investment and has contributed to a revival in the number of private lettings.

Mr. Hoon: Rent assessment panels agreed private sector rents in the east midlands for the first quarter of 1993 at an average of £46 a week. Will the Minister congratulate east midlands local authorities on keeping average local authority rents down to £28 as at April 1993? Does not that show how much better local authorities are at providing affordable housing than the private sector?

Sir George Young: The rent officers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency are operating under the Rent Act 1977. That regime shows how they operate. As to other rents in the private sector, Conservatives want investment in the private rented sector to be restored and more good-quality accommodation to be provided by private landlords. If that is to happen, those landlords are entitled to a realistic return and that means higher rents than the controlled rents supported by Labour Members.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of rents in the public sector is determined, in part, by the number of voids in the public sector? Is he


aware that, in the London borough of Barnet, 0.9 per cent. of council houses are empty, whereas in the London borough of Hackney 9.2 per cent. are empty? Is he further aware that, in certain London Labour boroughs, rent arrears equal more than 20 per cent. of the annual rent roll? Is that not a national scandal?

Sir George Young: As always, my hon. Friend's remarks are perceptive. It is unacceptable for local authorities to leave accommodation empty when people are in housing need in those boroughs. I urge all local authorities to do better in bringing back into use the voids under their ownership.

Mr. Battle: Is it not the reality that the Government are intervening and deliberately engineering high, rising rents in all sectors, forcing council rents up, pricing people out of being able to afford a housing association home, coercing council tenants to buy out, draining housing benefit into the private rented sector and forcing people to choose between a home and a job offer? When will the Minister realise that unemployment and low incomes into high rents just will not go without generating more homelessness?

Sir George Young: None of that happens. If the hon. Gentleman is making commitments for higher public expenditure, I wonder whether he has cleared that with his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).

Oral Answers to Questions — Housing Waiting Lists

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make housing waiting lists more effective.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Our consultation paper proposes a single local waiting list so that social housing is allocated as fairly as possible.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he confirm that, under the proposals, there will be adequate measures to take care of the most vulnerable members of our society?

Mr. Gummer: Certainly, I would not have introduced the consultation paper unless that was an absolute, basic fact.

Mr. Hardy: With millions of people in need of decent homes and scores, if not hundreds, of thousands of construction workers unemployed, is not the best answer to the length of housing waiting lists to build affordable low-cost housing for people to live in and to provide the jobs that mean that construction workers do not have to go abroad to make a living?

Mr. Gummer: That is why we have already exceeded the target on which we fought the previous election. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should spend more, perhaps he has not talked the matter over with his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), because that sounds to me like another promise to spend more money if the Labour party were elected.

Mr. David Nicholson: I agree with my right hon. Friend that we must clamp down on abuses in the housing waiting list system, but will he take the advice that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga

Maitland) put to him—young women with children should not be put at risk as a result of these measures? Will he also concentrate on continuing to revive the private rented sector and, therefore, take care that none of those measures damages the Government's rent-a-room initiative?

Mr. Gummer: I quite agree with my hon. Friend's first point, which is why we want equal access to the waiting list on the ground of need, instead of the present system. I agree that, as far as possible, we should revive the private rented sector, as we want as many homes as possible, particularly to provide for those who are without decent accommodation.

Oral Answers to Questions — Single Regeneration Budget

Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he had in the development of the single regeneration budget.

Mr. Baldry: Some 10,000 copies of the draft bidding guidance on the single regeneration budget have been distributed, 11 seminars organised and several hundred written responses received.

Mr. Simpson: Does the Minister accept that the new measures that he is introducing are little more than camouflage for a further cut in the funds available for urban regeneration? Does he acknowledge, in the context of the east midlands, that the three cities of Nottingham, Leicester and Derby received some £10 million under the previous allocation of urban aid funding, whereas under the single regeneration budget they will be invited to bid for a total of £10 million for the whole east midlands region? Does he accept that 40 or more authorities bidding for an open pot amounts to a descent into game show politics and economics, which reduces the status of funding to little more than the game show "Don't Forget Your Toothbrush"?

Mr. Baldry: That is all complete bunkum, and I shall gladly write to the hon. Gentleman with the figures to demonstrate the fact. The single regeneration budget straightforwardly fulfils our manifesto commitment to bring together resources for targeted inner-city programmes in a single budget, so that funds go where they are most needed locally, rather than according to a set of priorities determined in Whitehall. I should have thought that every hon. Member would welcome that.

Mr. Straw: Surely the Minister does not wish to mislead the House. Will he confirm that the annual report of the Department of the Environment—published only last week, on 8 March—states that there will be a cut of nearly £200 million in the single regeneration budget over the next two years?

Mr. Baldry: We are spending £4 billion on urban regeneration this year. In so far as there is any reduction, it is caused by the fact that some institutions, such as those funded by urban development corporations, are beginning to wind down. Those are the straightforward facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — Council Tax

Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports he has had so far about council tax levels.

Mr. Curry: The average band C headline council tax is £516. [HON. MEMBERS: "Average?"] Within that average, it will be found that the average for Conservative authorities is a great deal lower than the average for Labour or Liberal authorities. That represents an increase of 2.2 per cent. on the 1993–94 average.

Mr. Thomason: Has my hon. Friend read the speech that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made to the Labour local government conference on 4 February, when he said, "I am proud of the"—

Madam Speaker: Order. The Executive are responsible for Government policies; they are not responsible for the activities of any Opposition Member. Will the hon. Gentleman come to his point and ask a question right away?

Mr. Thomason: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Labour party has—

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me explain. I think it only right for me to explain to the House that the Government are not responsible for the activities or the policies of the Labour party at Question Time.[Interruption.] No, it is right for me to be heard, so that the House understands me. The Executive are responsible for Government policies only; that is their accountability during Question Time.

Mr. Thomason: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have consistently demonstrated that Labour is a party of high spending and high taxation in local government?

Madam Speaker: Not very well done, but just about passable.

Mr. Curry: I do not need to demonstrate that fact; I let it speak for itself.

Mr. Betts: Would the Minister care to admit that his use of band comparisons in regard to council tax is spurious and bogus? Let us suppose that two comparable authorities raise the same amount from the same number of properties, and their average council tax is the same. Very different comparisons could be made in respect of different bands. Authorities containing more properties in band A, the lowest band—which are more likely to be Labour controlled—would, as a consequence of that fact alone, have higher rates for the other bands. That is a simple mathematical truth. Perhaps the Minister would like to verify it, and also verify the political truth that Labour authorities cost less and give better services.

Mr. Curry: I notice that, whenever someone is about to say something that is manifestly not the case, it is described as some sort of irrefutable truth. It is not the case that Labour authorities cost less. The only sensible basis for comparison is comparing like with like, and that can be done only by making comparisons across the bands—which clearly demonstrates that Conservative councils are setting lower council taxes.
If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the total volume of tax depends on the configuration of properties in a council area, let me tell him that that is so evident that it is hardly worth debating.

Mr. Pickles: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), is not my hon. Friend being unkind to the Labour party, because

surely the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) clearly said that his spurious claim was based solely on the fact that Labour authorities have more properties in the lower bands? Has my hon. Friend noticed that similar Conservative authorities are a lot cheaper, so, band for band, Conservative councils cost people a lot less?

Mr. Curry: Perhaps my hon. Friend would mention the fact that if Labour authorities have more properties in the lower bands, they are much more likely to get more revenue support grant from the Government and to benefit from council tax relief and various other forms of relief. That means that, despite the fact that Labour councils get more support, they still cost more—they could choose to lower their council tax.

Oral Answers to Questions — Nitrogen Dioxide

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the principal sources of nitrogen dioxide emissions; and which of these are currently increasing and which are decreasing.

Mr. Atkins: Road transport, with 51 per cent., and power stations, with 25 per cent., are the main sources of nitrogen oxide emissions. I am pleased to report that the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics", No. 16, which will be published this April, shows that all the major sources are decreasing.

Mr. Ainger: In the light of the increasing evidence that there is a direct link between nitrogen oxide emissions and asthma and other respiratory diseases, will the Government introduce mandatory standards of air quality in line with World Health Organisation guidelines to protect the health of our children and that of other vulnerable people?

Mr. Atkins: An investigation is considering the problem of air pollution and subsequently, I hope, there will be a report. As the parent of an asthmatic, I am only too well aware of the importance of air quality to asthmatics and others with breathing difficulties, especially in certain urban areas. We expect to be able to make a judgment in the not-too-distant future. The House is aware that the expert panel on air quality standards is considering the issue, and I am only too well aware of the importance of the matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mrs. Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great contributions to reducing greenhouse gases comes from the United Kingdom's nuclear industry, especially Nuclear Electric, which, in 1992–93, reduced carbon dioxide emissions by more than 55 million tonnes and reduced sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions by more than 870,000 tonnes? Does he also agree that, by reducing the United Kingdom's reliance on fossil fuels, we are contributing benefits to the global and national environment?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend put the point as succinctly and as well as it needed to be recorded.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that one of the best ways to tell whether we are improving air quality is by increasing the scope of air monitoring stations because we are far below all comparable countries in testing the quality of air? Will he ensure that we have the facts so that we can tell what is happening, as a matter of public record and information?

Mr. Atkins: At the moment, we spend about £4 million per annum on air quality monitoring, and the figure has doubled since the 1991 White Paper. There is always a need to have a pretty fair understanding of air quality and the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but it is certainly our intention to ensure that air quality monitoring is improved, not the reverse.

Oral Answers to Questions — "This Common Inheritance"

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now intends to publish the third annual update of "This Common Inheritance".

Mr. Gummer: Very soon; the report is currently with the printers.

Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that "This Common Inheritance" was published in 1990 and reported in 1991 and again in 1992? Why is it six months late this time? One of its recommendations was that we should not export toxic waste, but it has now been proved that some non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries are used as routes for dumping such waste. Does he agree that we should be reporting the recommendation made by the Danes at the Basel convention?

Mr. Gummer: I made the decision, which was widely welcomed, that we should not publish the next White Paper until after the sustainable development report so that it could be taken into account. I do not think that anyone has objected to that and it has been widely understood to be a sensible order.
We export toxic waste only for reprocessing so that it may be used as a secondary raw material. We export it only to places that have the proper equipment and ability. I intend to continue doing that, and not to export to countries that do not want the waste. If there is any question of this method being used as a means of dumping, I shall examine it at once and cease to allow it to happen. I do not think that the Danish proposition is sensible, because a country that has the proper resources should not be excluded from the possibility of using the raw materials that have been created. Countries must have the proper resources. They must be able to control the waste and they must ensure that it is not used for the purposes that the hon. Gentleman states. We are on the same side and if he has any case that he wants to bring to my attention, I shall be happy to take it up.

Mr. Chris Smith: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), the Secretary of State will, of course, be aware that paragraph 14.61 of "This Common Inheritance" claims that Britain has taken a world lead in calling for self-sufficiency in national waste disposal. However, that does not apply to the export of toxic waste. The Secretary of State may nowadays be unimpressed by the fact that 15 Anglican bishops have called for an end to the export of toxic waste to developing countries, but he may take rather more notice of the call that has been made by Pope John Paul II. Will he, therefore, support the Danish proposal at next week's meeting of the Basel convention for a complete ban on the export of toxic 'waste from Britain to the developing world?

Mr. Gummer: I know of no ecclesiastical personage who would support the imperialist view that a country that has exactly the same means of reprocessing toxic waste to help its industry should be denied that opportunity because it happens to be a developing country. Those people want to ensure that none of that toxic waste is dumped on other countries and used improperly. I am determined to ensure that, but I am not acting imperialistically.

Oral Answers to Questions — Council Tax

Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce transitional relief for those new authorities which, as a result of the local government review, will face disproportionate increases in their council tax bills.

Mr. Curry: We are discussing with local authority associations the arrangements to finance new councils. When a new council receives a standard spending assessment that does not reflect its inherited commitments, we shall consider whether we should provide transitional help to protect council tax payers.

Mr. Rendel: In the light of that response, will the Minister assure us that, in practice, he will not enforce local government reform on any area against the wishes of the local community?

Mr. Curry: The purposes of local government reform are perfectly clear. They are to achieve a more accountable form of local government and to achieve more efficient local government. It is also a reform which corresponds to the needs of local people. If first tests demonstrate that changing the system of government will deliver those benefits, that is what we shall do. But if a fairly clear case can be made that that is not so, the Government have no national blueprint. We are not doing it just for the sake of change.

Mr. Oppenheim: What is the likely effect on a new authority's council tax levels? In Derbyshire county council's dying days, the deputy leader has been thrown into gaol for fraud and continues to draw his council's allowances; the former leader has resigned in disgrace, having squandered millions building a millionaire's complex in Yalta in the Crimea; and, habitually, close friends and relatives of senior Labour politicians get top jobs in the council. Is that not real corruption and gerrymandering and will not a cost be passed on to any new councils that are formed after the county council is abolished?

Mr. Curry: I am sure that all of us want the new councils to start with a completely clean inheritance and perhaps with a different set of values, as well.

Mr. Henderson: The Minister will be aware from his consultations with local authorities and others, especially Conservative colleagues, of the many anxieties about the cost of local government reorganisation. Has the Department commissioned a study to assess the overall cost in England arising out of any changes in the local government review? If such a study has not been commissioned, will the Minister tell the House why?

Mr. Curry: It is very simple. Let us be clear: there is a distinction between transitional costs and net costs. The net costs will be met. At the end of the day, we think that


the realisation of efficiencies, and so on, will pay for the transitional costs. However, until we know what shape local government will take, until we know what the commission comes forward with and until we know what the House will accept, it is utterly impossible to come to any conclusions. We have made it clear that we shall make available to local authorities credits to finance those transitional costs. All the commission's projections show that there will be a pay-back period in efficiency and in avoiding duplication, which will finance the transitional costs, including the rolled-up interest.

Mrs. Lait: Does my hon. Friend share my anger and that of my constituents at the blatant politicking that Lib-Lab-run East Sussex county council puts into its magazine "Countywide", which merely defends its current position? Is that not as bad as the loony left councils, and will it not be a cost to council tax payers, now and in the future?

Mr. Curry: I never cease to be amazed by the number of councils that tell me that they need more standard spending assessment because they are so hard up that they cannot finance essential services, yet they always manage to finance consultants, Queen's counsel and other people to argue for their own survival. Several councils have put out misleading propaganda, such as polls that can have only one result. I have seen East Sussex's literature, and it has been one of the most conspicuous authorities in doing that. A genuine debate about the merits of local government reform and how best to deliver services is to be encouraged, but simply trying to protect one's own job by misleading the public shows local government at its worst. We shall examine most carefully the costs incurred by such councils.

Oral Answers to Questions — City Pride

Mr. Orme: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what actions have been taken in relation to city pride.

Sir George Young: The partners in the three city pride cities, Birmingham, London and Manchester, have all formed partnerships to take forward the preparation of prospectuses for their areas and they are making good progress.

Mr. Orme: Does the Minister agree that that is a competition of the poor versus the poor, instead of providing proper funding for inner-city areas such as Salford? Government policy is not working in that regard. We need more resources. What does the Minister intend to do about that?

Sir George Young: We tried to get more resources on Monday night, and I am ashamed to say that the right hon. Gentleman again voted against more resources for my Department. The sum was £213 million, some of which would go to the urban programme. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to hear what Manchester city council said about city pride:
The City Council is determined to respond very positively to the Secretary of State's invitation.
If Manchester—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Salford?"] Salford is part of the committee involved in city pride. If Manchester city council can respond in that generous way, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can do so as well.

Oral Answers to Questions — Dogs

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage local authorities to deal with the problem of dog fouling of parks, beaches and other public places; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Atkins: The Government are very concerned about the unpleasant nuisance of dog mess, but we believe that that is primarily a matter for local authorities.

Mr. Mullin: The Minister's reply is hopelessly inadequate. Is it not a fact that our parks, beaches and other public places are ruined by the selfishness of some dog owners? Does he agree that it is about time that the Government took a lead in making those parks, beaches and other public places available to all our citizens?

Mr. Atkins: I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. It is true that a recent Tidy Britain Group survey revealed that one in six streets was fouled by dogs and that, for 76 per cent. of adults, dog fouling was one of the worst aspects of environmental damage of which they could think. However, one has to recognise that there is a difficulty, between the people who believe that their pets can do no wrong and others who take a different view. I do not want to fall between two stools.

Mr. Hendry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of compulsory competitive tendering, Conservative local authorities are more efficient at cleaning up dog dirt than Labour authorities? Does that not mean that, in a Labour authority, one has to watch not only how much one pays but where one walks?

Mr. Atkins: We can also say that, at any rate, we have a better class of dog in Tory authorities.

Ms Eagle: Will the Minister explain how the Government could possibly help the nation to clean up its dog mess when they cannot even clear up their own mess?

Mr. Atkins: I am always concerned at the fact that the hon. Lady is so unhappy about these matters. As I said, this is a serious matter and one which the House should take seriously. It is something which we should encourage. I suspect that there is agreement on both sides of the House about the serious message to give—we want to encourage owners to recognise the importance of not leaving dog mess in places where it can do damage to children, other people and society as a whole. If that message gets across on both sides of the House, that will go a long way towards solving the problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — Water Charges

Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Office of Water Services about the basis of charging for water supply in the south-west.

Mr. Gummer: The Department is in frequent discussion with Ofwat on the basis of charging for water.

Mr. Streeter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that water charges in Devon and Cornwall in 1993 were substantially higher than in the rest of the country, and we are now facing an increase in our water charges of more than 12 per cent? Does he understand that the patience of the residents


of Devon and Cornwall is wearing thin? Can he assure me that the Government are leaving no stone unturned to reduce our water bills? When can we have some positive news on this important subject?

Mr. Gummer: We are certainly seeking to do all that we can to reduce water bills. However, we must also meet the standards that not only are expected of us by the European Community but which we ourselves want to meet. We are trying to do both at the same time.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the Minister recognise that, because of the frightening increase in bills in the south-west, there is a growing feeling up and down the country that what is wrong with the water industry is that the customer—the consumer—is not coming first? Does he agree that it is crucial that both the water regulator, Mr. Ian Byatt, and the Government should start to listen to consumers about the unfairness of compulsory metering, the wrongness of disconnecting homes and the impossibility of meeting the very steep water increases?

Mr. Gummer: My constituents want us to meet the highest standards. They believe that it is a major protection for the consumer that water companies can cut off the supplies of people who refuse to pay their bills when they have the means so to do.

Mr. Harris: May I press my right hon. Friend on what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) said—people in the south-west will not put up with such bills for much longer? The fact is that many people cannot pay their bills. We are looking to my right hon. Friend and Mr. Byatt to find a satisfactory solution that will end the misery.

Mr. Gummer: I understand what my hon. Friend says. As he knows, he has been pressing me on these issues for some time, as have other Tory Members for the south-west. There is a difficulty in trying to deliver the standards that we want at a price that is acceptable to the consumer. I am seeking to find every means to do that. However, in the end, those standards cost money, and I know that Mr. Byatt has that point very much in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — Energy Audits

Mr. Faulds: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to ensure that local authorities carry out an energy audit of buildings within their area.

Mr. Baldry: We encourage local authorities to carry out audits of their own buildings as part of good practice and to play a wider role in energy efficiency thinking in their areas.

Mr. Faulds: As you know, Madam Speaker, I am always overkeen to get the business of the House completed. I have a very straight question and will be obliged if I get a very simple answer. Can I have an assurance that the Government will support the Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) —the Energy Conservation Bill—without amendment?

Mr. Baldry: We are considering that matter. However, as I made clear on Second Reading, we will not add to the burdens of local authorities unless it is absolutely necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — Air Quality

Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that all urban areas have effective monitoring of air pollution and quality.

Mr. Gummer: We shall cover all major cities within three years and are currently considering responses to our consultation paper, which proposes a national system.

Ms Lynne: Can the Minister confirm that air pollution has increased in urban areas? Does he agree with the advice that the Government are giving to the millions of asthma sufferers like myself—that we should stay indoors when air pollution is bad? Does he not think that he should be looking at the causes of pollution, rather than recommending voluntary house arrest?

Mr. Gummer: I agree that it is the causes of pollution that matter. Indeed, the air in our cities has improved considerably, but lately the increased use of cars has resulted in a return to a rise in pollution. That is why I announced yesterday, for example, planning policy guidance 13, which will change the balance in planning in relation to transport. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that, in the end, that is the way down which we must go, as well as having cleaner cars.

Mr. Barnes: May we have a full environmental survey of Staveley in north-east Derbyshire, where there are a mass of airborne pollution problems other than those resulting from transport, which has already been mentioned? Problems arise from the works in the area and from dioxin. I have raised that matter several times in the House. It would be fruitful for the Government to adopt procedures whereby they can solidly investigate asthma and other problems in such areas.

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me, I will certainly look into the possibility of doing something special in his area.

Oral Answers to Questions — Single Regeneration Budget

Mr. Etherington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations took place in the development of the single regeneration budget.

Mr. Baldry: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Etherington: In view of the Secretary of State's statement last November and the projection that there will be a 40 per cent. reduction in urban aid programmes between 1990 and 1996, will the Minister reassure the House that urban areas such as my constituency will not suffer even more drastically than they have done for the past three generations because money has been diverted into more prosperous areas that have only recently suffered because of recession?

Mr. Baldry: Millions of pounds have been spent on the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and nearby, through the Tyne and Wear development corporation, city challenge and other initiatives—for example, estate action and the single regeneration budget—and millions of pounds will continue to be spent in his constituency on urban regeneration.

Points of Order

Mr. Austin Mitchell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your help in respect of a letter from the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd). It apparently goes to Conservatives, although it is addressed "Dear Colleague", and it deals with the Conservative party and the European People's party, so it is rather long and embarrassing. I will just read the last paragraph:
Over the next four months, the responsibility for us all is to campaign for a Conservative victory in June's election. A centre-right majority in the European Parliament will strengthen our hand in building the free-market, deregulated and decentralised Europe to which all Conservatives are committed.
It is signed "Douglas"—or it could be "Dougie". The important point of the letter is that it has been written under the Foreign and Commonwealth Office letterhead and is addressed from the Secretary of State.
The help that I seek is to know whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has moved to Smith square or whether the Secretary of State does not know his departmental elbow from his party's arriere-pensee. Will you ask him to come to the House to explain the Foreign Office's new policy of supporting the Conservative party in the forthcoming elections?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point of order is not a matter for the Chair, largely because no House of Commons writing paper is involved. I assume that the Government have their own rules covering these situations. The accounting officer at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office may be interested in the circular. It does not, however, raise a point of order for me, and I cannot help the hon. Gentleman further on it.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that if an hon. Member's question is being dealt with on the Floor of the House the hon. Member should stay at least until the exchanges have ended? As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) did not do the House the courtesy of waiting until the exchanges had finished, can you tell us why he hurried away? Was he being sought by the district auditor who is looking into the affairs of Westminster council.

Madam Speaker: Out of the corner of my eye I caught sight of the hon. Gentleman leaving before answers to his question had been completed. I consider it a great discourtesy to the House and to me as Speaker in calling the Member, and I hope that all Members will note that in future, when their questions are being debated on the Floor of the House, they should remain in the Chamber until their questions have finished.

Mr. Alan Duncan: I unreservedly apologise, Madam Speaker, for leaving as I did. I did not realise that question 7 was still being discussed. I apologise fully for leaving as early as I did.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that in another place yesterday Earl Ferrers, the Minister of State, Home Office, announced that it was the Government's intention to introduce and railroad through a one-clause Bill rectifying their error on the Railways Act 1993 in order to restore the

right of arrest to the British Transport police. First, is it correct that the other place should be told on a different day from the House of Commons of the intention to introduce emergency legislation? Secondly, will a Minister make a statement about this legislation to rectify the Government's botch-up?

Madam Speaker: Nothing out of order has taken place. We shall, of course, be informed about the Bill when it comes before the House.

Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you, as the ultimate authority on the good running of the House, have received any report about this morning's proceedings in Standing Committee A with regard to scrutiny of a document. The Select Committee on European Legislation referred the document to the Standing Committee 16 months ago, but it arrived only today—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, as a long-standing Member of the House, understands our proceedings. This Chamber cannot concern itself with developments in a Committee until the Committee's Chairman has reported to the House on any irregularities that may have occurred. I should hope that, in the case of any irregularities, the Chairman would report to me so that they could be dealt with in the normal way.

Mr. Harris: rose—

Madam Speaker: If this is a point of order with which I can deal, I must, of course, hear it. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind what I have just said and will not raise matters occurring in a Committee upstairs, which should have an opportunity to report to the House.

Mr. Harris: I accept what you say, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate the point. That is why I asked the Chairman of your Panel to refer the matter. It is absolutely disgraceful that it has taken 16 months for such an issue to be referred to the relevant Committee. I hope that the Panel Chairman will pursue the issue at the request of the Committee.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: rose—

Madam Speaker: It is not a matter for me, but as the hon. Lady has an involvement in the matter I must hear whether she has a point of order.

Mrs. Dunwoody: It relates to the same point of order, Madam Speaker. The difficulty for the House of Commons is that ours is a scrutiny Committee and this is an auditor's report. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the situation, we ask for the protection of the Chair. If the House of Commons makes arrangements for Committee scrutiny of European legislation, and if that legislation is not referred in good order and in good time, the House of Commons fails to perform its proper task. That is the point that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and the rest of us wish to bring very forcefully to your attention.

Madam Speaker: In that case, I shall certainly look into the matter.

Dr. Tony Wright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster any


communication about the need for a statement on the citizens charter? As you may know, the second report under the charter is being published this afternoon. On every previous occasion, a statement has been made to the House. Indeed, the Minister concerned spoke on the radio this morning about the charter programme. We have been told that the charter is the centrepiece, the flagship, of the Government's programme. Does the absence of a statement indicate that the flagship is being allowed to sink?

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that a Minister is seeking to make a statement. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity later in the week to seek further information from the Government.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who is present today, will recall that on Friday the Civil Rights (Disabled People) Bill was given a Second Reading, with more than 200 Members voting in favour of it, and none against. The Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) introduced, which also went through unopposed, has now been saddled with countless amendments, many of them tabled by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry). Will you, Madam Speaker, allow the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to tell us whether he will permit a practice designed to obstruct the Bill, and will he give us a guarantee of extra parliamentary time to enable the legislation to go through all its stages?

Madam Speaker: Ministers do not require my permission to make a statement. This is not a point of order for the Chair. However, Ministers will no doubt have noted the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Charles Hendry: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: It cannot be a further point of order as the last point was not a point of order in the first place.

Mr. Hendry: It is a new point.

Madam Speaker: Very well.

Mr. Hendry: Is it in order for an hon. Member to criticise another hon. Member for tabling amendments to legislation that will affect every consumer in the country? It seems that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would allow two and a half hours for debate or seek to have the legislation put through on the nod. Is it in order for him, without giving warning, to try to deprive other Members of an opportunity to debate such an important matter in detail?

Madam Speaker: I said originally that the hon. Gentleman did not have a point of order for me. I think that it is a matter of personalities. Hon. Members might try to have their exchanges elsewhere, not in the Chamber.

Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it a new one?

Mr. Riddick: It is a new point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Has the hon. Gentleman just thought it up?

Mr. Riddick: Yes.

Madam Speaker: Yes, I thought as much.

Mr. Riddick: I have just thought it up, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Or dreamed it up.

Mr. Riddick: Might not the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) have had to ask his question because he never serves on Committees—

Madam Speaker: Order. I knew that I was making a mistake when I agreed to listen to the hon. Gentleman. We now have a ten-minute Bill, which will make much more sense, no doubt.

Social Security Regulations (Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema) Amendment

Mr. Michael Clapham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations to reduce to ten years the aggregate period of underground work required to qualify for benefits in cases of chronic bronchitis and emphysema; to amend the rules relating to medical assessment of percentage levels of disablement in people suffering from these conditions; and for connected purposes.
I should like to declare an interest. I am sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers.
My Bill would change in four main ways the prescription test that was introduced in the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1993. First, it would reduce the qualifying period from 20 years to 10 years. Secondly, it would reduce the disablement threshold from 14 per cent. to multiples of 10 per cent. Thirdly, it would specify that soft exposure X-rays should be used for diagnosing dust retention. Finally, it would replace the FEV1 test with a thorough and sensitive medical examination.
I want to consider the background to the original regulations and to explain the rationale on which my amendments are based. The original regulations were based on the recommendations of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. After more than 20 years, the council has finally accepted that there is a causal connection between the exposure to coal dust and the development of chronic bronchitis and emphysema. As a result, it has recognised that the disease should be prescribed in relation to deep coal mining and recommended the application of a prescription test. That test has already proved to be too harsh.
The failure rate in South Yorkshire, according to the Department of Social Security office in Doncaster, is estimated to be 90 per cent. of applicants. I am advised that the overall failure rate nationally is the same. That means that, of the 23,477 applications received in the first wave, about 21,000 will be turned down. That cannot be what the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council intended.
Let me give the House an example of the sort of case that is being rejected. Last Saturday week, I received a telephone call from Mr. G. Scott, a former miner. He told me that he is so enfeebled by breathlessness that he has to use a nebuliser to assist his breathing. He has been treated for chronic bronchitis and emphysema for years, but when he was recently subjected to the prescription test he was told by the examining authorities that he did not have a sufficient degree of the disease for a disablement assessment. Mr. Scott is not unique. I have received letters from former miners who are similarly disabled and have had the same experience at the hands of the medical authorities.
I shall explain the rationale that underpins the amendments in my Bill. Pneumoconiosis, chronic bronchitis and emphysema have the same causation: coal dust in the lungs. It is an established fact that pneumoconiosis, which is defined as fibrosis of the lungs, is a more complicated stage than dust retention and can be contracted by an exposure of 10 years or less. That fact is recognised in the regulations on pneumoconiosis that

specify a qualifying period of 10 years. It is, therefore, illogical that the less complicated stage of dust retention should require a longer exposure period.
The second and related difficulty that my Bill seeks to amend involves the level of disablement threshold. Under the original regulation, that level is 14 per cent., but my Bill proposes to reduce it to multiples of 10 per cent. For my reasoning, I again turn to the example of the pneumoconiosis regulations. In cases where that disease is accompanied by chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and where the examining authorities consider that the former disease worsens the latter, additional assessments are given in multiples of 10 per cent. It is, therefore, unreasonable to move away from the already established principle of assessing chest diseases, particularly chronic bronchitis and emphysema in relation to coal miners, in multiples of 10. On those two matters, one cannot avoid the conclusion that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council saw itself as the controller of the Government's purse.
I have referred to the case of Mr. Scott. Let me now give the House two hypothetical, but extremely realistic, examples of miners who were suffering from the disease but could be ruled out of benefit because they did not meet one or other of the criteria. Two miners who work together underground for 17 or 18 years both leave underground work together. One continues working in the colliery on the surface in dusty conditions, and the other takes a job as a school caretaker. When they reach retirement age, both have respiratory conditions and both apply to the pneumoconiosis medical board.
The former miner who left the pit is found to have pneumoconiosis with attendant chronic bronchitis and emphysema. He would receive 10 per cent. for the pneumoconiosis, plus 10 per cent. because the pneumoconiosis worsens the chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and would finish with an assessment of 20 per cent. The miner who had spent all his life at the colliery is examined and is found to have dust retention with very acute chronic bronchitis and emphysema. However, as he is not a pneumoconiotic, he cannot be afforded an assessment under that regulation. He is referred to the chronic bronchitis and emphysema regulation, but immediately is ruled out of benefit because he does not meet the 20-year criterion. Again, I contend that that cannot be a fair procedure.
My second example relates to redundant miners. Tens of thousands of former miners have now been made redundant and have not been able to work for 20 years underground. Sadly, but inevitably, some of those young men will develop chronic bronchitis and emphysema due to coal dust retention in the lungs. However, under the qualifying period of 20 years, they will be ruled out of benefit.
In preparing the Bill, I sought medical advice from an eminent chest physician who sits on the regional medical appear tribunal, and that advice was of particular value for the third and fourth amendments of my Bill. Diagnosing dust retention in the lungs from X-rays is an extremely precise art. I am advised that it is made difficult because the normal type of hospital X-ray may not show the condition. A surer way of making an accurate diagnosis—it is called for in my Bill—is to use specific soft exposure X-rays.
Finally, my Bill calls for the replacement of the FEV1 test by a more sensitive medical examination. I am advised that, medically, although the test measures the overall lung function, it is possible for a man to be more breathless due


to coal dust induced chronic bronchitis and emphysema and, because of that, to suffer greater disability than a man who has a one litre reduction in the lung function test. Clearly there needs to be an examination to eliminate other causes of breathlessness, and there needs to be a more sensitive examination under the pneumoconiosis regulations. The disease is diagnosed from X-ray evidence and medical examination.
Even when it is accompanied by chronic bronchitis and emphysema, the degree of disability is determined by a medical examination. The amendments in my proposed Bill would make the prescription test for diagnosing chronic bronchitis and emphysema in coal miners and former coal miners a fairer and more just procedure. I urge the House to accept the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Clapham, Mr. Eric Clarke, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mr. Terry Patchett, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. Ted Rowlands, Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

SOCIAL SECURITY REGULATIONS (CHRONIC BRONCHITIS AND EMPHYSEMA) AMENDMENT

Mr. Michael Clapham accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations to reduce to ten years the aggregate period of underground work required to qualify for benefits in cases of chronic bronchitis and emphysema; to amend the rules relating to medical assessment of percentage levels of disablement in people suffering from these conditions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 April, and to be printed. [Bill No.75.]

Madam Speaker: We now come to the ways and means motions.

Ways and Means

CAPITAL ALLOWANCES: BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That provision may be made for balancing charges under Part I of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 where any of the value of the relevant interest in any building or structure is realised otherwise than on a sale.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Mr. A. J. Beith: Are we taking the motions together or singly, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: For the convenience of the House, we are taking with the first motion the two following motions relating to PAYE and pre-entry losses:
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made relating to the Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1993 and the Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1973.
That provision may be made amending Schedule 7A to the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.

Mr. Beith: Some words of explanation on the third resolution from the Financial Secretary would be helpful in view of the extent of argument that we have had about the treatment of indexation losses in Committee. We are dealing with the ways and means motion after we have dealt with some aspects of the matter in the Standing Committee that is considering the Finance Bill.
The House is entitled to know whether the resolution is designed to enable some refinement of the provisions for indexation losses that members of the Committee do not yet know about, or to do something else. The point that I have sought to put to Ministers is that to remove what have become known as the Lawson reforms on indexation losses is a strange move for the Government to make. The abuses that have led the Government to believe it necessary to abandon what they regarded as important and long-lasting changes in tax law could be dealt with by more specific means.
On the face of it, the ways and means resolution appears to open the way to more specific means of tackling abuses by companies that use subsidiaries as devices to create losses that can be set against gains and, thereby, avoid taxation. That type of abuse could usefully be dealt with, rather than abuses by individuals who, under the changes that the Government propose, will no longer be able to set tax losses in one security against tax gains in another. Of course, if people have their funds in unit trusts, the problem will not arise because the net gains will be considered. However, if people have a small portfolio of shares, they will face a problem.
The resolutions appear to provide an opening to deal with the problem in a better way than the Government are doing. That made me especially intrigued to know what they were up to.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) should be congratulated on his ingenuity in raising again on the Floor of the House a subject that we debated last night in the Standing Committee that is considering the Finance Bill. The resolution and the new clause for which it is a paving measure is not intended to deal with the subject of loss


indexation allowance per se. Loss indexation is to do with the quantum of loss relief that is available to a particular taxpayer.
The two defects that will be dealt with as a result of the ways and means resolution are connected with the transferability of losses between companies within a group. Therefore, they deal with a different issue from that which the right hon. Gentleman is worried about. The issue that he raised was dealt with in last year's Finance Bill,—capital loss buying and the abuse, which is perceived as an abuse by hon. Members on both sides of the House, which derives from companies buying capital losses and setting them off against capital gains elsewhere in the group.
We introduced last year anti-avoidance measures to deal with that problem. The measures that will be built on the ways and means resolution which we ask the House to approve now will deal with that aspect of the problem. So the resolutions are directed at the transferability of capital losses rather than the quantum of capital losses.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The official Opposition would have been happy to take the three ways and means resolutions formally, but a few words of explanation are called for following the remarks of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
The three resolutions that facilitate the blocking of three separate potential avoidance devices do not relate to the matter that the right hon. Gentleman raised. I have every sympathy with him in the matter of substance to which he referred. He was right to say that we had a long and not particularly fruitful discussion of the matter yesterday in Committee.
The three resolutions with which we are dealing all aim to facilitate anti-avoidance legislation. They have the support of the parliamentary Opposition in that. In particular, the second resolution has our support because it is a measure which I called for in the Committee which considered the previous Finance Bill. The Financial Secretary assured us that it was not necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That provision may be made for balancing charges under Part I of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 where any of the value of the relevant interest in any building or structure is realised otherwise than on a sale.

WAYS AND MEANS

PAYE

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made relating to the Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1993 and the Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1973.

PRE-ENTRY LOSSES

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending Schedule 7A to the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Redundant Churches

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I beg to move,
That the draft Grants to the Redundant Churches Fund Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is empowered by section 1(1) and (2) of the Redundant Churches and other Religious Buildings Act 1969—as successor, for this purpose, to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, named in the section—to make by order, with the approval of the Treasury, grants to the redundant churches fund up to a specified maximum, over a specified period.
The redundant churches fund was originally set up in 1969, and the statutory provisions relating to it are currently embodied in the Pastoral Measure 1983. The fund has as its object 
the preservation, in the interests of the nation, and the Church of England, of churches, and parts of churches, of historic and archaeological interest, or architectural quality, vested in the Fund by Part III of the 1983 Measure, together with their contents so vested.
Its chairman and members are appointed by Her Majesty after advice has been submitted to her by the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York, through the Prime Minister.
The fund is now celebrating its quarter century and currently holds 290 churches, ranging from 18th century inner-city churches such as Holy Trinity, Sunderland and St. James, Toxteth, to rural ones, such as the 12th century St. Pendock near Tewkesbury and the 14th century St. James, Luffincott in Devon. What they have in common is that they are all of outstanding quality—a matter on which the Church Commissioners, who decide on vesting, have the expert advice of the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches, which is also provided for in the 1983 Measure. Together, they form a most impressive portfolio and, along with churches still in pastoral use, a lasting witness to the strength of our ecclesiastical heritage.
The draft order provides for grants to the fund in the period from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1997; that is, in the next three financial years. The five previous orders each covered a five-year period; the present order is the first to cover only three years. That change implements one of the recommendations in the 1990 Wilding report on the care of redundant churches. Five-year periods were, as Mr. Wilding saw, originally helpful in establishing an assured future for the fund for five years ahead on each occasion, but the fund is now sufficiently well established for that assurance to be unnecessary and there are several reasons for preferring a shorter three-year period.
In particular, the long lead time needed for preparing a quinquennial budget and obtaining approval means that figures have had to be worked out and presented for discussion up to two years before the beginning of the quinquennium. Those figures are now in cash terms and the process therefore involves trying to take a view, of the rate of redundancy, the rate of vesting and above all the rate of inflation for the next seven years. In our view a three-year period provides a much greater encouragement to realistic forward planning and fits the general public expenditure framework.
For the period 1994–97, the draft order provides for grants to the fund up to a maximum of £7.2 million. That


figure includes £2.2 million for the financial year 1994–95 and £2.5 million for each of the following two financial years, as already notified to the fund for planning purposes. The maximum figure in the order has been approved by the Treasury.
The order as made requires the signature of two Lords Commissioners of the Treasury as well as that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. The annual figures included within the overall grant fall within the relevant public expenditure totals already made public.
The figures also represent the Government's 70 per cent. contribution towards the fund's expenditure, with the Church Commissioners providing the remaining 30 per cent. The Government's proportion has risen steadily from 40 per cent. in the first quinquennium to 50, 60 and, in the quinquennium just ending, 70 per cent. Therefore. the fund's maximum overall budget amounts to £10.3 million for the coming triennium. That allows for some new vestings and the necessary initial repairs as well as for continuing repairs to churches already vested.
I would not want to pretend to the House that the level of funding envisaged in the order is ideal, but public expenditure needs to be kept under proper control and the language of priorities rules.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The Minister has mentioned possible new vestings. His attention may have been drawn to the fact that during the debate on the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, I drew attention to a gap between the redundant churches fund and the historic chapel fund in relation to private chapels and chapels of ease that belong to the Church of England but which the redundant churches fund cannot take on. Nor does the historic chapels fund consider it appropriate to take them on—I speak as a trustee of that fund. Is the Minister looking into that problem and will he come back to me about it?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I will look at the important problem that the right hon. Gentleman raised and I shall come back to him in due course.
However, within that framework, we can take a measure of satisfaction from the fact that the maximum provided in the order, taken with what is provided in the Church Commissioners' parallel order already approved—the Payments to Redundant Churches Fund Order 1993—amounts to an increase in cash terms for 1994–95 of 13 per cent. over the current year's figure and a further increase of 16 per cent. planned for 1995–96 and 1996–97.
The fund's powers under the Pastoral Measure 1983 include the power to hold, manage, repair and maintain the churches vested in it and the power to license the occasional or temporary use of its churches. The Church Commissioners may also divest it of churches vested. The House will recall approving last week the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, which now awaits enactment. That Measure gives the fund some useful further powers, including the power to grant leases, and clarifies its power to charge admission for churches it holds, thus adding to its ability to make good use of the resources provided.
There is another change in prospect that it might be helpful for me to set out as a background to the draft order. Section 1(1) of the Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Act 1969 will be amended to enable the Department's grant to be paid to the Church

Commissioners for the purposes of the fund, rather than directly to the fund itself. That change will implement a further recommendation of the Wilding report and is aimed as making the Church Commissioners
a focal point for the review of policy and the selection of priorities and the matching of expenditure with resources.
Relations between the Department and the fund in respect of the Department's grant are currently regulated by a financial memorandum, setting out both parties' financial responsibilities as approved by the Treasury. In the new circumstances envisaged, there would be a similar memorandum regulating relations between the Department and the Church Commissioners to ensure proper control over the public expenditure element.
The Church Commissioners are already at the centre of the decision-making process—proposals for redundancy come to them from the dioceses and they decide which churches shall be vested in the fund—but the change proposed would give them a clearer role in the determination of policy and the choice of priorities. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) announced in November 1992 our intention to introduce legislation to that effect when room could be found in the Government programme. I hope that it will be possible to implement it at some stage in the coming triennium.
There is one final point that could be worrying some hon. Members. The draft order relates to grants to the redundant churches fund, but the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure provides for the fund's name to be changed to the churches conservation trust. That reflects the fact that vested churches are no longer fairly described as redundant, but have a role to play that is of value to Church and state and to their local communities. I can assure the House that the change of name will be automatically applied to the interpretation of the draft order as soon as the measure is enacted. With those few words, I commend the draft order to the House.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I thank the Minister for moving the order, which has the Opposition's support. That is hardly surprising as it was a Labour Administration who, in 1969, introduced the original Measure. I am glad that it has the continued support of the hon. Gentleman's Administration.
I welcome, too, the change to a three-year period and accept the valid arguments that the Minister made. The fund is well established and there is no danger, in the light of Mr. Wilding's report, in the move to a three-year period.
The order is important, as is this short debate. People all over the country who are worried about the future use and role of their parish churches will be listening to the debate, anxious to know what chance their churches have of being reprieved and restored and of continuing to play a part in the community. The debate is important to many communities because churches are a key architectural and community resource long after they have ceased to have an ecclesiastical use.
In previous debates, not least the one on 8 March, to which the Minister referred, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has made it clear that in both rural communities, such as those in East Anglia and in his own part of the country, and in cities, churches are invariably the focus. Historically, they have always been centres for the community for festivals, feasts, music,


debate from the pulpit and charitable matters such as alms giving. In particular, churches are invariably the most outstanding architectural point in a community, often the most visible, dwarfing all others.
The future of redundant churches is an important matter to communities and to our architectural heritage. Therefore, it is good that the Minister has moved the order in such a constructive way. There is an element of urgency about it. The noble Lord Templeman's report on the fate of London churches shows the scale of need and the seriousness of the problem.
The Opposition support this excellent measure, but I should be grateful if the Minister would answer certain questions when he replies to the short debate. He should tell the House something more about the scale of need. Between 20 and 30 churches become redundant every year, but, as far as I am aware, no figure is published of the number of redundant churches for which another use has yet to be found. The Government should make clear the number of churches that are potential recipients of the fund.
Only when we look at the scale of need and the queue of applications can the House decide whether the fund of £7 million during the next three years and the total fund of something over £10 million are adequate. The Minister recognised in his brief remarks that the amount of money is not ideal. He referred to public expenditure controls and the language of priorities, but he owes it to the House to give some idea of the scale of need. How many applications have been received and what is the total cost? 
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who usually takes part in these debates but cannot be in his place today, because he is chairing a committee on Bosnia, would have liked to be here. He is a trustee of the Historic Churches Preservation Trust and knows only too well that literally hundreds of applications are received by that trust each year, each one of which runs into six figures—more than £100,000. Very few applications to the trust are for amounts of less than six figures.
The House can see the scale of need and the size of budget required. Even the most modest re-roofing of a church runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds. Communities all round the country are doing noble work in raising money by voluntary means, but they cannot address the scale of need and the urgency that such problems present. When the Minister replies, he should tell the House how many churches are queuing up for the money and what the scale of budget is. We could judge what he admits is not an ideal sum in the light of need and the ability to respond to that need.
When the Minister gives that figure, will he also say how it was arrived at, what the Church Commissioners and others have asked for and what was the range of consultation, not only with Church figures but heritage bodies, to establish that this is the correct sum and that we are not underestimating the need? When we come to renew the order in three years' time, we should be better informed and more aware of how we are responding to the heritage and historic needs of churches. Is the need growing or static? Are we dealing with the backlog slowly or is it beginning to escalate out of control? We need to hear more from the Minister on those matters.
How are we to address those needs? Does the country have the conservation and restoration skills that are necessary to respond—£7 million is a lot of money to spend even on the few churches that will benefit—for example in masonry, joinery and stained glass? Do we have the architectural and ecclesiastical expertise and the historical understanding of the context of the churches? All that must be addressed. All that is expensive. Hon. Members who have been, for example, to Wells cathedral or Hereford cathedral and seen the high quality of the restoration and conservation work there will know how difficult such work is, and how, on those projects, there has to be a great deal of in-house training to train young stonemasons to deal with the enormous skills that mediaeval stonemasons had but which we have lost over the years.
It would be useful if the Minister said something about the training and skills that will be implicit in the grants and whether those training skills respond to the level of need. Will the Minister reassure the House that an element of training will be in each of the grants so that we build up a store of skills in masonry, joinery and other ecclesiastical skills and thereby benefit from the good spending of the grant? 
I reiterate that the Opposition thoroughly support the measure and look forward to a report by the Minister on how the money is being spent.

Mr. Michael Alison: I apologise to you, Madam Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for not being present when the order was introduced. The business galloped ahead with such unaccustomed rapidity, and my hon. Friend's speech was so succinct and to the point, that it overturned and exceeded my capacity to get across the road from No. 1 Whitehall in time to hear even the tail end of it. Fortunately, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who is the Opposition spokesman, in his elegant and helpful speech of welcome to the order, touched on most of the important points that my hon. Friend made so I am now as familiar with it as though I had heard it myself.
I am therefore glad to be able to express warm thanks and appreciation on behalf of the Church Commissioners and the Church of England more widely not only for the substantial financial benefit that will accrue to the Church of England from the order but for the personal interest and concern that my hon. Friend has taken in it and in this part of Government policy. There is bipartisan agreement that it is a responsibility of Government, but nevertheless a demonstration of civilised Government, that they should be prepared to dip hands into the taxpayer's pocket for what is a comparatively rarefied part of public expenditure that will produce no dividends in immediate political popularity but will, nevertheless, preserve things into the future and bring enormous appreciation and value to successive generations.

Mr. Fisher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a specific question about the criteria with which he and the Church Commissioners, for whom he speaks, approach the selection of churches? 
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has received some correspondence about St. John's, Hanley, a church in my constituency. That beautiful church, which stands in the centre of the city, is one of Hanley's few fine buildings.


The Commissioners have been asked to approve its use as a climbing centre, and to deem that use appropriate, although what the community needs is a place for contemplation and repose.
As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, a strong body of local opinion in the centre of Hanley—led by the rector's wife, Mrs. Janice Owen—is in favour of keeping the church for the community. It would be very helpful to those people, and to other communities in the same position around the country, if the right hon. Gentleman said something about the Commissioners' approach to issues which—as he will appreciate—are of great concern to my constituents, and to others.

Mr. Alison: I am not sure whether it was the hon. Gentleman who wrote to me about that church; I think that it was. A substantial draft response has been prepared and I feel that it would be improper and undesirable for me to rehearse it now. As a result of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, however, the case that he has specified has been subjected to microscopic examination.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least derive from the answer that I am about to send him some fairly encouraging insights into the series of filters—some would call them baffles—that lie between the decision of a local diocese, through a pastoral committee, to consider a church for redundancy and the stage at which various architectural and other expert bodies, such as English Heritage, are brought into play under a broad Commission aegis to conclude whether the church should be considered for inclusion in the redundant churches fund. Rather than speaking for a long time now, I shall send the hon. Gentleman a note explaining exactly how we "pick the winner", so to speak.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Can the right hon. Gentleman shed any light on the number of churches seeking succour from the fund? That would give us a better idea of the extent to which it will be able to deal with applications.

Mr. Alison: I am tempted to respond to the hon. Gentleman's request, but I do not want to spoil my hon. Friend's winding-up speech, of which that relevant information will be an important feature. Rather than trespassing on his speech, I shall leave that little gem of information for him to hold up and allow to sparkle before the House.
I thank my hon. Friend warmly for the proposals that he has introduced: he has carried out his departmental responsibilities helpfully and generously. The Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, which we passed the other evening, is the kind of vehicle that makes the essential infrastructure provision for the order, but my hon. Friend's proposals represent the living fuel that enables the machinery to turn over and function. These important resources are the essential key to the Measure.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). He said the other day that, although we were discussing redundant churches, the Church—partly because of the population shift—is now building a significant number of new churches each year. That is right: the Church must respond to the needs of the present, rather than giving priority to maintaining the heritage. I fully recognise,

however, that across the Church—and, indeed, more widely—there is a general acceptance that the Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Act 1969 was far-sighted and wise; I think we should ensure that its purpose continues to be served.
I shall make two points. First, I echo the important contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and those of one or two other hon. Members who mentioned churches that are not Anglican but which have architectural or other merit. I hope that the debate will send the signal that organisations such as English Heritage will maintain that part of our inheritance.

Mr. Beith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recalls the fact, because it featured largely in our recent debate, that English Heritage has been determined in its support for, and its help in creating, the Historic Chapels Trust to do precisely that job.

Mr. Hardy: One hopes that the Treasury will not prevent English Heritage from continuing that obligation. It would be useful if, in his wind-up, the Minister would assure the House that that purpose will continue as a priority.
Secondly, I relate an incident that occurred in my constituency in the past two weeks. It concerns security. Although the grant is welcome, the challenge facing those responsible for redundant churches as a result of the increased crime rate is quite frightening. I can illustrate the point using a local case.
The old parish church in Wentworth is the only redundant church in my constituency. It is a 12th century church, which was replaced by a new and much larger building in the late 1870s—I cannot remember whether it was in 1877 or 1879. The new church was built by a very large and powerful Whig family, the Fitzwilliams, who by that time had become very important and presumably very affluent. A much larger church was required for their retinue, miners, gamekeepers and domestic servants, but the old church is of enormous historic and social importance in South Yorkshire.
In that church lie the mortal remains of the great-great-great-great grandfather of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Stafford. The church is still used from time to time; it is used in the summer, but cannot be used for services in the winter because it has no heating. The two local residents who take charge of the church—Mr. Roy Young, a retired headmaster of the local school, and Mr. Tom Tinker—devote an enormous amount of energy to maintaining the building as an important part of South Yorkshire life. Mr. Young sometimes arranges exhibitions in the church; indeed, he arranged one recently.
Among the exhibits was a collection of photographs of paintings that were last displayed in the 1930s in Sheffield. Since then, most of the paintings have disappeared, so the photographs in the exhibition are of considerable importance. A number of other artefacts and books were included in the exhibition, but two weeks ago there was a burglary. Thieves got into the church and removed a number of artefacts, including the bible presented by the Marquess of Rockingham, the father of the Rockingham Whig leader who was Prime Minister twice in the 18th century.
The bible was bound in silver and velvet. The thieves also removed a prayer book which I believe was presented in memory of Viscount Milton, who was the son of the


great Whig reformer. I often suspect that the family declined after they ceased to be powerful Whigs and I think that their descendants are largely Conservatives—but that is another matter. It was once a very powerful family and Lord Milton was one of the great architects of political reform. The Bible, a very important book which commemorated that fact, was stolen. Other books were also taken, some of which have been recovered. One important book has been recovered, but has been damaged by damp. It was a dreadful theft of important items. As I said, one book that was bound in silver may have been destroyed so that the thieves could extract the silver that bound it.
To ask the local community to provide 24-hour security is impossible because of the cost of that sort of operation. With the development of interest in antiques and historic artefacts, even the churches in use, as well as the redundant churches, are under grave threat. We tend to assume that the Redundant Churches Fund Order of the Churches Conservation Trust is concerned about the architecture of churches that are vital landmarks in our environment, but often churches may be included in that list because of their interiors. It would be outrageous if we had to insist, because of the rate of crime in our society, that everything inside a church that made it a vital part of our inheritance had to be taken out for safe keeping. Security costs money. One important church in York has to have an attendant and the cost of such attendants can be substantial.
I wonder whether the arrangements that have been made adequately reflect the soaring rate of crime through which heritage is pillaged and valuable artefacts are broken down and sold in the burgeoning antique business. It is rather disturbing that in our generation we see a greater threat to our heritage as a result of the soaring crime rate than has been the case in the past. Until relatively recently, many of our churches could remain open so that people can go in for prayer and reflection. However, few churches can be left open now. When a church is redundant and the artefacts in it may be attractive, it is extremely vulnerable. When the local community is small and the church already depends on the dedicated service of its people, we cannot expect those people to devote more time to patrol all the churches during the hours of darkness and in inclement weather.
Wentworth church was burgled during extremely bad weather. However, I am delighted to say—my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) will especially appreciate this in view of his close connection with our local police—that the South Yorkshire police, unlike some police forces, tend to be very successful and the burglars have been apprehended. Whether we recover the artefacts remains to be seen. I have no guarantee, and no one in the village of Wentworth and the surrounding areas can have any guarantee, that the next time Mr. Roy Young, in the pursuit of the growing interest in local history, stages an exhibition in that church, it can be held with a feeling of security that other priceless items will not be stolen.
The grant envisaged of £7,200,000 is hardly enough to cope with the challenge presented by the soaring rate of crime. In due course, will the Minister consider finding out how much damage has been done, the value of the items that have been stolen and what assessment should be or

could be made to provide support for the newly named organisation in its efforts to preserve heritage, which I hope that the whole House supports?

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is fairly unusual for the Church of England to get such a prime-time slot. It strikes me as more like a General Synod debate on a dull day than the excitement of the mother of Parliaments. However, such is the product of non co-operation and the timetabling that ensues.
May I make one significant point, following the debate last week, on the City of London churches? It relates to the amount of money and the demands on that money, which is available through the grant and the order, which I hope will be passed and which my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and I shall support with our colleagues. As the Minister will know, a recent report by Lord Templeman, to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred, came to the view, with which I do not disagree, that many City of London churches are no longer needed for the purposes of parish ministry. I hope that all of us in the Church realise that there comes a time when the venue of a church is no longer an appropriate centre for a parish and should not be sustained for that purpose. In rural areas, that happens when the village moves from its original site to a new development elsewhere and we are left with a little church up on a hill and the people living further away, down below. My sister-in-law, who is to be ordained a priest in the Church of England in a few weeks, is a curate in such a parish in Essex. The new daughter church is down in the valley and the original church is on the hill; the population has moved on.
The same happens in and around cities. In the middle ages, and in the time of Sir Christopher Wren and others, the demand for churches was in the City of London and not in the other places that have been built since. The demand for churches is not there any more. We understand why things have changed. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and others said in the previous debate, many churches were built in excess of requirements even in the middle ages, as presentations to God of the glory of what human beings could create; they were not necessarily all required because of the number of people crowding into the pews.
In the City of London, we are left with a huge and wonderful array of churches which, to be honest, are not being used by thronging millions for daily or Sunday worship, so I guess that it would be right for the diocese of London to say that many of them are surplus to requirements and are no longer needed as parish churches.
However, it would be a tragedy if those churches were not to remain publicly available, and available for other uses. I am sure that the Minister would not want that to happen. He was not on the Front Bench during the debate last week, but the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who speaks for the Church Commissioners, mentioned some of the many churches that have come to be used not as parish churches but as churches for special types of congregation or types of worship.
One church that has been chosen for such a purpose —it was mentioned last week—is the church of St. Agnes and St. Anne, in the City, which is now used as the base for the Lutheran Church in London. Lutherans from Europe


and America regularly come there and it is a lively church with brilliant music, jazz evening services and all sorts of other good things. That has great merit and contributes to a multi-cultural and diverse population, both those who live in London and those who come to London to visit the church.
I ask the Minister how the negotiations will proceed, and how far his Department will be involved this time and, more importantly, in debates to come—this will be a three-yearly grant, if approved. How will we be able to ensure that from among the Church Commissioners—for reasons that we will not go into today, they are hard up and do not have much spare money—the Department of National Heritage and others, we can find the funds to enable the churches to survive in a good state of repair? They are the heritage of all of us, they are in the capital city, there is a large number of them, and they will not be needed for the parish ministry. Other people are willing to take them on for other uses, but it will be no good if we leave them to pick up the tab, because they cannot afford it.
I should be grateful to hear at the end of the debate how the Department intends to make progress on the Templeman report and on working with the Church Commissioners. To use a phrase out of context, I wish to ensure that our beautiful historic legacy of the City of London churches does not fall between the two stools of the Department and the Commissioners, which would prevent us from doing our best to ensure that, as they move from the parish ministry to other work, the churches remain among the glories of the City of London in this wonderfully endowed country of ours.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall speak briefly, following on from a brief intervention that I made in the debate on the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure last week. I speak not as a member of the Church but from an agnostic point of view. I do not approach the matter from the point of view of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who represents the Church Commissioners and who feels that spending the money may be appreciated by only a narrow section of the population. I believe that the beauty and the majesty of churches in the townscape and in the landscape generally are widely appreciated by a vast cross-section of the population and by far more people than actually attend churches.
The churches are part of the rich pattern of diversity in our townscape and landscape. Sadly, in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, that diversity was much reduced by philistine architecture, which changed from buildings with curves, shapes, nooks and crannies that hold, arrest and entertain the eye, to square utilitarian blocks with little to commend them, not even the internal comforts for the occupants. Indeed, in the case of tower blocks, there has been an enormous number of problems.
The churches of the Church of England are an important aesthetic pleasure—they are part of our art museum. Redundant churches are part of our national art museum and, therefore, it is right that the money envisaged in the order should be spent. As I said last week, the grant will help the Church of England to resist the god of mammon. Occasionally, the Church of England has been tempted to ensure that a church is demolished, so that it can obtain

revenue from the church site because it wants the money. I hope that the order will help to preserve some of the magnificent buildings that so many people appreciate.
I hope that the Minister has taken note of the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). It is not only churches of the Church of England which provide pleasure to the eye when they are redundant and should be retained—chapels are also part of the rich nonconformist tradition, especially in the north of England. For example, a beautiful chapel at Cleckheaton—where else—which is a magnificent testimony to the spirit of nonconformity, is being turned into a night club. I would rather see it as a night club than demolished. But, at the same time, we have lost a great many churches and chapels which potentially could have had some use and given pleasure if they had been retained.
Architectural buildings of magnificence are not simply buildings; they are a message from the people who built them. They were built with great care and devotion. They are a testimony to the beliefs of the time and, especially in the case of chapels, a testimony to dissidence. Testimonies to dissidence should be retained, because it is a spirit which I regard with affection.
The Minister said that he will tell the House what demand there is for the money—just over £7 million and a total of £10.3 million in three years. Will the money be adequate, or will we see the continuing erosion of some buildings because it is inadequate? I understand the priorities that affect any Government and about which tough decisions must be made. However, it will be useful to know what demand there is for the money.
The Minister helped the House by saying that the order will be changed when the legislative process of the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure is completed—the change from the redundant churches fund to the Churches Conservation Trust will be automatically applied in the order. That is all well and good. However, I hope that that sort of useful information will be added to the explanatory note in the future so that people are informed when they read it. We should try to make legislation as clear as possible before it leaves the House. The explanatory note is not part of the order and, therefore, does not depend on the passage of the Measure for its authenticity. It could be made clear that the change in name depends on the passage of the Measure. That would help in any future reference.
The order is probably the only legislation introduced by the Labour Government which the Conservative Government are likely to support, so we should certainly welcome it.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I do not intend to repeat what I said in the debate on the Pastoral Measure last week, but I shall pick up two or three points made in the debate.
The Minister need not go as far as Cleckheaton to see a chapel converted into a night club. He need walk only as far as Charing Cross road where, just on the left, he will see a very substantial, former Welsh calvinistic Methodist chapel which, during my time in the House, has been converted into a night club. There are many conversions of churches and chapels in London and elsewhere.
That leads me to make the point that the redundant churches fund and the Historic Chapels Trust cannot hope to cope with the full range and number of buildings that


may cease to be used for parish or congregational worship. There is a quite widespread public feeling that, if possible, fewer buildings should cease to be used either as parish churches or as places of congregational worship. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said that people in parishes all over the country would be interested in this order, so that they can discover what will happen to their churches. Many will hope that their church does not fall into the hands of the redundant churches fund because they will want it to continue in use.
There is an understandable view in the churches that buildings must be secondary to the Church's mission. However, there is a view in the community that if the Church wants to serve the community one thing that it can do is continue to keep open places that the community has for centuries regarded as sanctified by worship, which are of special architectural quality and which provide a place of repose and meditation that many people find important. There is, therefore, a certain tension between what the Church feels impelled to do and what communities want. I underline the point that we do not want an excessive number of churches and chapels to be made redundant. When they are, some of them must be considered for alternative uses and some can appropriately be put to other uses, particularly those whose visual contribution is primarily their exterior, which adds a great deal to the townscape.

Mr. Hardy: I would not necessarily object to a redundant church becoming licensed premises. We have in my constituency a former church run by Mr. Joe Hodgson who calls it the St. James' club, and it is conducted wholesomely. However, a building owned by our parish church in Wath upon Dearne was acquired by a brewery company; it secured planning permission for "upmarket purposes" and subsequently called it the Jailhouse Alehouse. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if church buildings are to become licensed premises they should be given reasonably suitable names?

Mr. Beith: Anyone who takes over an historic building should have some sympathy for the building in the use that he makes of it. Generally, it is commercially a good thing to draw on the traditions and qualities of a building when one uses it for some other activity. Many nonconformists, however, are uncomfortable with their buildings becoming licensed premises, and some have trust conditions and covenants expressly to prevent their use as such, which complicates the situation when a sale is in prospect.
Incidentally, therein lies a fundamental difference between the redundant churches fund and the various other schemes, including the Historic Chapels Trust, which try to save churches. The fund's churches are handed over to it by the Church Commissioners; they do not have to be acquired at a price. Any attempt to save a nonconformist building, including an attempt by the Historic Chapels Trust, needs money to buy it, perhaps against the competition. The church concerned may want to sell the building for another use in order to reuse the funds as part of its "development strategy", as they like to call it these days.
Some nonconformist denominations have even sought to sell their buildings in such a way as to ensure that they do not go to other denominations lest they provide

competition for their own congregations. I recall a case in New Mills where a Methodist church, in my view wrongly, sought to prevent a chapel from remaining in use because it thought that it would attract some of its present congregation and deter them from moving to the place where they were supposed to go as part of the rationalisation scheme. So all sorts of factors enter into nonconformist buildings, and some of them are relevant to the point that I made in an intervention on the Minister about a category of Church of England buildings with which, at present, the redundant churches fund cannot deal. They are those which are separately owned, either as private, proprietary chapels, such as St. John's, Matlock Bath, or hospital chapels or other buildings which fall firmly within the tradition of the Church of England but which are not in its direct ownership. That is a problem which we must address because, as a trustee of the Historic Chapels Trust, I find it difficult to envisage that a trust with so many responsibilities for nonconformist, Roman Catholic and Jewish buildings could take on a whole batch of Church of England buildings as well. The redundant churches fund could do that particular job. The prospects for co-operation between the redundant churches fund and the Historic Chapels Trust are very good. We are already on good working terms.
I particularly want to say that English Heritage has been very supportive in setting up the Historic Chapels Trust and in its continuing work, and I hope that the Government will continue to take a close interest in what we do. It is of considerable importance that we apply the same efforts to key redundant nonconformist buildings as the redundant churches fund has applied so successfully to many redundant Church of England churches.
Many of these churches are hugely valued by the community. The work that has been done to conserve and protect them is of lasting value for many generations to come. We strongly support the order.

Mr. Sproat: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to this extremely interesting debate—more interesting than perhaps it looked at the beginning when the Benches were rather sparsely populated.
I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) for welcoming the order on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition. He said that the debate would be heard all round the country and I am certain, from the contributions that have been made this afternoon, that he is absolutely right.
The hon. Member referred to the Templeman report. Perhaps I may come to that in the context of the contribution of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and say one or two things about it later. He also mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). My hon. Friend did me and the House the courtesy of coming to apologise for being unable to be present because he is chairing a meeting of a committee on Bosnia, but he told me how much he welcomed the purport of the draft order.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked about the number of redundant churches likely to come up and whether the funds were sufficient. It is an absolutely central question and it is fair and proper that he should ask it. Some 290 churches are currently vested. During the 1980s, roughly 10 churches asked for help. The number


then fell off, for reasons on which I cannot speculate—it was probably just a mathematical fluke—to between six and eight churches a year from 1991 to 1993. Once again, however, as we have this debate, something like 10 cases are in the pipeline. It looks as though that is the order of magnitude about which we are talking.
The hon. Member also asked whether the funding was sufficient to deal with those churches. We hope that it is. We expect that it is. It is true that the fund wanted rather more money than we gave it: it wanted some £16 million and we have given it £10 million. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) mentioned a figure of £7.2 million. That is the Government's contribution, and the Church Commissioners' contribution takes it up to just over £10 million. In answer to the hon. Member's question, therefore, the situation does not appear to be escalating out of control. We will keep a close eye on it, but at the moment we think that it is under as much control as something so unpredictable can be.
The hon. Member also asked whether we had the necessary skills in this country, such as stonemasonry and carving, to deal with the problem. We do. If we look at cathedrals—the hon. Member mentioned Wells and there are others such as Ely—we see excellent examples of work, proving that we still have the skills in this country. English Heritage set up a new training centre where those skills are taught. Its name escapes me—it is something like Fort Brockenhurst, but I will check and let the hon. Member know. It is very important that this marvellous tradition be kept alive and well. Although that is not one of the purposes of the fund, it will be one of its most beneficial side effects.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) for his contribution, which, as he is one of the Church Commissioners, is particularly welcome.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) raised the very sad question of the security of churches. I agree that this is a disturbing trend. When I was in Birmingham yesterday, someone told me about people who had fired guns at stained glass windows during church services. This is not quite the same thing, but it is an indication of the lack of respect with- which such places are now treated.
For the purposes of the fund, contents are regarded as integral to a church. Thus, we shall certainly look very carefully at the problem of burglary and at the question of security in general. So far, the problem does not seem to have been unmanageable. We have been monitoring the situation and the indications are that, in so far as one can ever say that such things are under control, it is not wildly out of control.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned the Templeman report. Templeman said that 12 churches should be withdrawn from use. It is absolutely

unthinkable that those buildings should be demolished. The Templeman report will be addressed by the diocese of London in the autumn. Technically, this is not a matter for my Department—

Mr. Simon Hughes: Not yet.

Mr. Sproat: As the hon. Gentleman says, not yet. However, we shall take a very close look at the situation.
My understanding is that the question of funding could be resolved in one of the two ways that have so far been suggested. One suggestion is that a new city churches trust be set up and that will be looked into by the diocese of London. The second suggestion is that city churches be made eligible under the normal fund provisions. When we make our arrangements for funding for the next triennium we shall take into account whatever decision the diocese of London arrives at. I agree strongly with the point about the beautiful legacy of London churches. We shall make sure that the situation is not allowed to slip to such an extent that churches have to be demolished.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said something with which the whole House will agree: that the rich pattern of architectural diversity that these churches represent is crucial. All of us—to whichever church we belong, or whether to any church at all—will have agreed with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Gentleman. He said that we should be concerned not only with Church of England churches but with nonconformist chapels and the great tradition that they encapsulate in brick and stone. Because what the hon. Gentleman has said is so true, we recently set up the Historic Chapels Trust. The first two chapels have already been acquired and they will be eligible for English Heritage grant. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, English Heritage has been very helpful in this respect. The right hon. Gentleman will know that that body is looked after by my Department. We intend to see that it continues to be as helpful as it has been.
The right hon. Gentleman made a good point about the change of name to Churches Conservation Trust. Perhaps it should have been included in the explanatory memorandum. It is a good idea, but it did not occur to me. In fact, we intend to include it when the order ceases to be a draft, if the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure is enacted.
The right hon. Member mentioned the tensions that so often arise between Church and people. He is very right, but I am glad to say that it is not usually my job to resolve tensions.
With this brief reply, I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Grants to the Redundant Churches Fund Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.

Rateable Values

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I beg to move,
That the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions:
That the draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.
That the draft Football Grounds (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.
That the draft Telecommunications Industry (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.

Mr. Stewart: The four draft orders concern the determination of rateable values. Three of them could reasonably be described as technical. The first two continue derating in Scotland for the coming financial year for industrial and freight transport lands and heritages and for mines and quarries. The fourth concerns the annual recalculation of the rateable value of the telecommunications hereditament in England and Wales. The third order, which may be of particular interest to the House, introduces a revenue-based scheme of formula valuation for Scottish Football League club grounds for the present financial year and for 1994–95.
As we move towards full harmonisation of rating valuation north and south of the border and towards a common level of rate poundage, the justification for industrial derating obviously diminishes. We have, therefore, undertaken to phase out industrial derating in Scotland in parallel with the progressive reduction of rate poundages that continues this year. Measures have already been introduced to secure a further reduction of £60 million in non-domestic rates next year. That allows us to reduce the level of industrial derating from the 1993–94 level of 17.5 per cent. to 10 per cent. for 1994–95. That is achieved by the draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order. The Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order provides for the same level of derating to apply to mines and quarries.
With regard to formula valuation, the Football Grounds (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order relates to the valuation of Scottish Football League club grounds. That subject has been of considerable interest to hon. Members—in particular, perhaps, those who are members of the all-party Scottish sports group, chaired by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), which has taken a special interest in the matter. The order prescribes a formula to be used in determining the rateable values for 1993–94 and 1994–95. The objective is to mirror the effect of the non-statutory scheme of valuation that is used for similar subjects in England and Wales.
As hon. Members who are interested in this subject will recall, following the 1990 revaluation the Valuation Office agency and the Scottish assessors assured the Government that, although different methods of valuation had been used north and south of the border for league football grounds, broad harmonisation had been achieved. However, that was not the view of the Scottish Football Association, the

Scottish Football League and their members, who maintained that there were still significant differences, resulting in an unfair rating burden falling on Scottish clubs. As there is a discretionary element in the English scheme, it is not possible to prove some of these things with certainty. However, we have decided that it is right that the method of valuation for this class of subject should be seen to be as similar as possible on both sides of the border. The draft order therefore seeks to mirror the effect of the non-statutory English scheme of valuation for league football grounds by assigning to each Scottish Football League club ground a valuation by formula based on the club's home league gate receipts in the season 1987–88, as that is the year in relation to which values were struck for the 1990 revaluation.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the order have any consequential effects on junior football clubs? As the Minister knows, many of their grounds are becoming dilapidated and funds are extremely scarce. There is a problem with junior football grounds.

Mr. Stewart: I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman says, but the scheme applies purely to league football grounds. The issue of Highland league clubs was raised, but if the formula were applied to them, most would pay rather more than at present. We sensibly decided not to extend the formula.

Mr. John McFall: The Minister will appreciate that the Scottish Football Association is concerned about its clubs in the Highland and East of Scotland leagues. Will he gave a commitment to consider the situation because of the genuine concerns of the SFA?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is right. The SFA has genuine concerns and we have considered them. The issue is not covered by the order, but he asked us to keep the matter under review and I give him the commitment, without making any promises, that we will continue to consider the matter. We are approaching a general revaluation, which may be of assistance.
Hon. Members may be interested to know that the draft order will be of particular benefit to clubs that have either moved recently to new purpose-built stadiums or have incurred significant costs in modernising their grounds to meet the requirements of the Taylor report. Most clubs will see their valuations reduced as a consequence of the order.
The fourth order deals with the way in which the rateable value of Mercury Communications is recalculated annually between England and Wales. The matter has been discussed with Mercury Communications, which is content with the fact that the technical recalculation introduced by the order corrects a discrepancy that was not originally appreciated. I hope that the orders commend themselves to the House.

Mr. John McFall: As the Minister said, three of the four orders are technical. The one involving the rating of football grounds is of greater interest to us. The Minister will know that the order has been a long time coming. The Minister first took the matter up way back in 1983 during a previous incarnation in the Scottish Office. For us to make any progress, he had to leave the Scottish Office, return to it and be the subject of lobbying. At that time, a White Paper expressed the view that Scottish sports


grounds generally paid more in rates than their counterparts in England and Wales because the two systems used differing rate poundages and methods of valuation. As he knows, Scottish football clubs petitioned against the system. In 1985, a number of appeals were heard involving statutory provisions by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland and the Lands Valuation Appeals Court. Clubs such as Celtic, Hibernian and Heart of Midlothian appealed and Celtic received a 25 per cent. amendment to its rates.
The disparity between the position for clubs in England and those in Scotland has been highlighted. The Minister mentioned the building of new stadiums. I remember that a comparison was made between Scunthorpe United and St. Johnstone regarding the building of new stadiums. Both grounds had a capacity of about 10,000, but the 1990 assessments were £10,500 for Scunthorpe United and £65,000 for St. Johnstone—a gross disparity between clubs in England and Scotland. Nothing much happened, however, and Scottish clubs continued to press the Minister.
In April 1991, the Scottish Office wrote to the Premier League clubs to gather information to enable detailed consideration to be given to the effect of a change to a revenue-based approach to valuation of football grounds in Scotland. In March 1993, the Scottish Office stated that there was insufficient time before the 31 March deadline of that year for a statutory instrument to be introduced. We are delighted that, this year, that has happened.

Mr. Roland Boyes: What are the consequences of the order for Berwick Rangers and other Scottish teams?

Mr. McFall: The Minister could guide me, but I think that the smaller clubs, rather than the larger ones, will benefit from the order. During his regular forays across the border to see Berwick Rangers, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) may see things getting better in the coming months as a result of the statutory instrument.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I had intended to raise the subject later, but I shall do so now following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). There is an anomaly in that Berwick Rangers plays in the Scottish league, but its ground is located in England. Presumably, therefore, it will not benefit from the provisions. It will be interesting if the Minister will tell us—perhaps he will receive inspiration from someone on his left-hand side in due course—whether Berwick Rangers will be significantly better off than other Scottish league clubs as a consequence of the continuing difference between the rating systems north and south of the border.

Mr. McFall: I think that it is up to me to give a typical "Yes Minister" reply by saying that, at present, I do not have that information at my fingertips, but I shall do everything to ensure that Berwick Rangers prosper in the future. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me on that.
I mentioned our qualified support for the order. The Scottish Football League and the SFA are glad that the order has been laid before the House and do not wish to impede its progress. Some issues, however, should still be brought to the Minister's attention because there has been

insufficient focus on some aspects. For example, as I mentioned, last year the order was not laid before the House in time. The inability to implement the statutory instrument in the previous rate year led to a greater loss of benefit to Scottish clubs than was envisaged by either the SFA or the Scottish Office. It would have been beneficial if the formula in the statutory instrument had been adjusted to compensate fully for that period, but I believe that that will not happen.
In addition, the formula, although available only until the 1995 valuation, does not allow for major physical changes that would result in significant changes in the pattern of income. It appears that total loss of structures or loss of individual structures in grounds cannot be reflected in the formula, as instanced in the case of Aberdeen football club. Under the formula, 1988 is the date for valuations in terms of rental evidence for the 1990 roll and the physical circumstances are those pertaining at 1 April 1990. The formula does not allow for the correct adjustment for clubs that have moved league positions as well as grounds in the intervening period. A particular problem faces St. Johnstone football club, which has moved to a new ground.
The 50 per cent. rule in the formula excludes Queen's Park football club from the calculation. The clubs and the SFA reckon that the rule is inequitable and bad. Queen's Park FC is termed as a rateable occupier of Hampden Park, and although Hampden is used by others—for example, it is used for international events for which payment is made to the rateable occupier—the statutory instrument seeks to exclude Queen's Park from the formula, thereby prejudicing its position with regard to rateable value and rate payment.
Queen's Park and the SFA would like the position regarding Hampden to be put into two categories—one for Queen's Park exclusively and the other to recognise that it is a national football ground. The exclusion that is built into the statutory instrument for the purposes of leaving Queen's Park to be valued on a contractor basis is wholly inappropriate and has no foundation in rating law, vis-a-vis the point that the club, as a rateable occupier of a football ground, is treated differently from other similar rateable occupiers of football grounds.
The Minister mentioned that the statutory instrument has been written to apply only to clubs in membership of the Scottish Football League notwithstanding the fact that, from the outset of discussions relative to the rating of football grounds on a revenue-based method, the SFA has sought to have consideration given to applying the agreed scheme to all member clubs that participate in other leagues, such as the Highland league and the East of Scotland league.
The exclusion of such clubs, whose circumstances are similar in many instances to those of clubs in membership of the. Scottish Football League, is considered to be inequitable and is an issue which the Opposition and the SFA would wish to have addressed in the lead-up to the 1995 revaluation. I am pleased to note the Minister's comments on that point.
A number of problems have resulted with the current system in relation to the Taylor report. For example, my understanding is that if a Scottish club improves its stadium, the rateable value will increase. In addition, a club's overall income might very well fall as a result of finished improvements that lowered the ground's capacity


and because parts of the ground had to be closed while improvements were in progress. That particular point was made regarding Celtic and Parkhead this year.
The result is that clubs would spend large amounts of money on improvements while their incomes suffered as a result of lower capacities and, at the end of the day, they would face higher rateable values for the work that they had undertaken. The current situation partly explains the reluctance of Scottish football clubs to improve their grounds. I do not accept that proposition and I hope that the Minister agrees. It is important for Scottish football clubs to come into line with the Taylor recommendations as soon as possible.
I hope that, for the sake of the fans and of safety at Scottish football grounds, the Minister will cast a critical eye towards clubs, particularly those in the Premier League, regarding implementation of the Taylor report.
I give the example my local club, Dumbarton. The income of clubs at its level may depend on getting a good Scottish cup tie. For example, Dumbarton played Rangers a couple of months ago at Ibrox, with a hefty sum of money as a result. That money will take the club over the year, and that was good for Dumbarton. But many clubs in the lower divisions do not have that opportunity, and they are up against it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned junior clubs. I know that they are not included in the statutory instrument, but if we want to keep our heritage and our football culture alive, we must look at such issues as time goes on.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I would just caution my hon. Friend about his enthusiasm for the Taylor report and the need to implement crowd safety. Clubs are confronting problems because of delays in planning processes. That has meant, for example, that Hibernian FC is faced with the requirement to have an all-seated ground before the start of next season. The club has plans to move from the existing Easter road stadium to a facility at Straiton.
The difficulty is that it has encountered problems in planning that have meant that it must spend money that has been allocated for the prospective Straiton project on Easter road because the club is required to have an all-seated ground by the end of July in preparation for next season.
Money that should be going on future improvements will have to be spent on a stadium which, frankly, will be redundant at the end of the season after this. Therefore, there should be qualification of my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the Taylor report. The way in which it has been interpreted and applied by Mr. Farry of the SFA seems to suggest that there is a requirement on every club to have an all-seated ground by the beginning of next season.
That is regardless of the good endeavours of clubs to meet serious slippages in the planning processes. Hibernian FC has to spend on the old stadium money that it does not really have and which was identified for the new stadium because of the narrow and unhelpful interpretation of the rules that have been laid down somewhat brutally and simplistically by the secretary to the SFA.

Mr. McFall: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. I know that that problem applies to Hibernian, and also applied to Celtic before the present board took over. I believe that Celtic FC was to put in plastic seats in Parkhead. As a general principle, I believe that football clubs should have had their houses in order on this issue years ago, as provincial clubs such as Aberdeen and Dundee United have done.
If clubs are there to satisfy fans and to breed success on the park, they must have the best facilities possible. In that context, I would say that the Taylor report is pointing in the right direction, and the quicker that clubs comply with it the better, although there are certain caveats.
With those comments—I am rather surprised that the order has generated such debate—I welcome the proposition, but, like Oliver Twist, I come back to ask for more.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I will say a few words, initially to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on introducing the statutory instrument on football grounds. I believe that it measures up to the needs of Scottish football and certainly recognises the difference between the major and minor clubs. The formula is a good one which recognises the pulling power of the major clubs and the fact that there are differences in cost between access to second division and Premier League games. That is a major factor in the formulae that have been devised.
I can identify with most of what was said by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). Perhaps one disagreement would be with his use of the term "provincial clubs" when he referred to Aberdeen and Dundee United. Those clubs would see themselves as slightly more than provincial, and the way in which the teams perform would certainly suggest that.
My hon. Friend stressed the importance of ensuring that Scottish clubs were not paying more in this way than their counterparts south of the border; that happened in the past. The changes seem to be another example of the drive towards a uniform business rate, which we all wish to see in Scotland.
I should be interested to hear my hon. Friend's comments on the point raised about Berwick Rangers a few minutes ago. He suggested that the valuations would reflect the amount of capital investment made by clubs in bringing their stadiums up to standard. That, again, is an important point which my hon. Friend recognised, and I congratulate him on dealing with it.
As for the Taylor report and the comment that was made about the Hibs, I should have thought that there would be powers of derogation. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister would clarify that point. Perhaps it does not lie entirely with the secretary to the Scottish Football Association. I should have thought that a realistic approach would allow us to ensure that the overall objectives set by Taylor could be reached in a way that did not place unnecessary expenditure in the path of those clubs that drive towards the Taylor recommendations.
With those few words and my congratulations once again, I am pleased to welcome the statutory instrument.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I should like to raise three subjects: first, football; secondly, mines and quarries and thirdly, Mercury.
I begin by reiterating my comment that money is desperately needed for many of the junior football clubs. The Minister and everyone here knows that the stadiums are often crumbling. There simply is not enough money to allow the necessary capital expenditure to be found. I realise that the matter is on the periphery of the order that we are discussing, but it raises the question whether some of the money that finds its way to the senior football clubs should find its way to the junior clubs. After all, the junior clubs are the feeders. If junior football is not flourishing, that is detrimental not only to the Scottish game as a whole but to many communities. What is the Government's thinking about junior grounds?
I wonder whether I could turn the Government's mind to a constituency problem that has wider implications. I am deeply and increasingly worried about the position of the Polkemmet pit. I should explain the background. Polkemmet used to be the second biggest pit in Scotland. I am glad that the Minister for Energy is here. He may recollect that, unfortunately, during the miners' strike after weeks, indeed months, of good relations between the police and the National Union of Mineworkers, the pit was flooded, in the most horrendous circumstances, partly because of the infiltration of individuals who crossed picket lines. Mrs. Rimington has to take her responsibility for that matter, which has been raised in an Adjournment debate.
Be that as it may, Polkemmet was flooded. Now we have a double problem. First, there is the question of purification of water. It is a matter of considerable concern to the Lothian purification board that the amassing water from Polkemmet is finding its way into all sorts of underground water supplies throughout the Lothians. The second and even more immediate problem is that the fire at the top of the pit has not been put out. I say that in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who speaks for the Opposition on mining matters. The fact of the matter is, and he knows it, that the cone of fire is still burning. It is very difficult to put out a fire without massive development on the surface. One has to tackle the fire by vast opencast expenditure. Is any Government finance likely to be available through the order to help the local authorities?
The Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order says:
after consultation with such associations of local authorities".
When the Government are doing their best to create mayhem among the local authorities, this is not the easiest moment to get the full attention of local authorities on an urgent problem. Incidentally,
such associations of local authorities
is slightly unusual wording. I wonder why it is not "after consultation with the local authorities". Is there any significance in the wording "such associations of"?
At a time when it becomes ever more clear that British Coal is willing to take less responsibility for its residual problems—Polkemmet is such a problem—what will be done about a major pit fire? Will it be entirely left to West Lothian district council? If it is, the Government will see in full focus the problems that a small local authority has when faced with a major problem. I would rather that

Lothian region was there to cope with the problem of Polkemmet, or at least help cope with it, than the problem being left to the small district councils.
The last subject that I wish to raise—I see that you are on the edge of your seat, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is Mercury. I am not sure whether you had taken over the Chair when the Minister mentioned Mercury Communications. I do not know whether the reference was to the English order. I asked the Clerk at the Table to let me have a look at the order, which is not immediately available in the bunch in the Vote Office. The order refers entirely to England. In any case, I shall continue until such time as I am told that I am out of order.
There is an immediate issue in connection with Mercury Communications and Hutchison Microtel. It can be encapsulated in what happened at Cairnpapple a year ago. It may be within the recollection of Ministers that Hutchison Microtel, which is based in Hong Kong—I make no complaint about that; it is a big international company—decided to erect a mast on the perimeter fence of what Historic Scotland claims is the most important bronze-age site—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman deploys his argument, let me say that the Telecommunications Industry (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order covers England and Wales and is exclusive to England and Wales. It is about the valuation of Mercury's cable in those two parts of the United Kingdom. So unless the hon. Gentleman intends to deploy his argument in relation to parts of England and Wales, I shall have to ask him to cease giving the example that he had begun to give us.

Mr. Dalyell: The cable will be temporarily extended to Scotland. In defence of that attitude, apart from the fact that I have wanted to air this grievance for a long time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All of us have wished to express certain views and opinions for a long time, but there are times when they are in order and times when they are out of order. That cannot be the basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument. A temporary move or alleged temporary move of certain cables is equally not a sound basis on which to take the argument further.

Mr. Dalyell: All of us have to plug into our parliamentary opportunities when such occasions arise. Could you spend a minute thinking about why the Minister could raise the subject and I could not? It was the Minister who sparked me. Had it not been for him, I would not have had the opportunity to raise the matter. I ask briefly—it will be in one sentence—whether the Government are giving any careful thought to the planning considerations in determining whether masts should be put up near historic sites and in areas of natural beauty.
I am coming back to England straight away. I gather that after the Cairnpapple episode, which received a great deal of national publicity, there were considerable complaints in Bradford and elsewhere about masts being erected without proper consideration. In this rating matter, I wonder whether I could stretch the point—that will be the end of the tube as far as I am concerned, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and ask whether the Government will consider that point and at least write to me about it.

Mr. Stewart: Of course I always listen carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Some of the matters that he mentioned are the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and he, of course, will also have listened to the hon. Gentleman. The English and Welsh order applies simply to the calculation of the rateable values of cables, not masts in England and Wales or Scotland, and the order applies only to England and Wales.
I thank the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) for expressing the Opposition's welcome for the orders. He is right to say that they have been a long time coming. Many people have done a great deal of work and the hon. Gentleman will recognise, as my hon. Friends have recognised, that this is a complex matter. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) spoke about Berwick Rangers. As he knows, Berwick Rangers is located in England and its ground is therefore harmonised with other English football grounds. That means that Berwick Rangers is unaffected by the order.

Mr. Boyes: We are in an interesting situation. May I put a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I am not absolutely sure—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order for the Chair I will have to listen to it.

Mr. Boyes: I am not sure whether the Minister has finished or is expecting an intervention from me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can clarify that. The Minister has the Floor and he has given way to the hon. Gentleman for a short intervention. When the hon. Gentleman has made that intervention, the Minister will resume his speech.

Mr. Stewart: I thought that I had not wholly satisfied the hon. Gentleman and that he wanted to intervene. If he does, I am happy to give way.

Mr. Boyes: I want to make a small contribution to the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make his contribution at this point.

Mr. Stewart: I was dealing with the points made by the hon. Member for Dumbarton. I am happy to reassure him about the effects of the order on a number of the clubs that he mentioned. He will be glad to know that Dumbarton benefits under the order. He specifically mentioned St. Johnstone, which had a rateable value of £65,000 under the previous system. Its estimated rateable value—it is an estimate at this stage—is £18,000 under the formula in the order. The hon. Gentleman spoke about improvements in relation to the Taylor report.

Mr. Boyes: Whether it relates to Scottish or English football, this is an important issue. It is a major problem for many football grounds because of the amount of revenue needed to increase the value of the team. Some of us are a little worried about whether smaller clubs will have enough cash to provide all the seating that will be needed. In general, we accept Taylor's thesis, but the smaller grounds have big problems and a number of them will not be able to determine the number of seats that will be needed in the next few years.
The Minister must accept that some clubs will not be able to provide all that the Taylor report requires, and he should consider granting leeway for some of the smaller clubs. Some clubs in Scotland and England are very small and are strapped for cash and much money will be needed to satisfy the demands and needs of the Taylor report. As I say—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a long intervention. The hon. Gentleman can catch my eye when the Minister has finished if he wishes to make a speech.

Mr. Stewart: Perhaps I could help the hon. Gentleman and the House by saying, in relation to a number of clubs, that the certainty of valuation under the order would protect clubs such as Hearts and Hibs, which were referred to by Opposition Members, from any potential increase in their valuations for 1994–95 which may have occurred under the contractor's principle if they had embarked on significant modernisation work to meet the requirements of the Taylor report. In principle, the same point applies to Aberdeen, which is undertaking a major ground improvement. That would have been reflected in a substantial increase in its rateable value under the previous system compared with the present one. Under the formula system that we propose, the club is bound to be better off.
The main criticism of the order by the hon. Member for Dumbarton, which I have not dealt with in my short speech or in answer to interventions, related to Hampden Park. Of course, that matter has been raised with us. We appreciate that Hampden Park is a national stadium. Its 1990 valuation of £80,000, which of course could have been subject to review because of phase 1 of redevelopment, compares with £560,000 for the National Stadium of Wales, £226,500 for Murrayfield and £1.25 million for Wembley. Like other football grounds, Hampden Park will, of course, be subject to the 1995 revaluation.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton said that this was not a perfect order. We recognise that, but the objective was to bring Scottish valuation into line, as far as was possible, with the treatment of clubs south of the border. We have substantially achieved that and I commend the orders to the House.

Mr. Roland Boyes: I have three small matters to raise with the Minister. First, Berwick Rangers is in an interesting situation because it is an English club and is in a Scottish league. At times, it is difficult to resolve that dichotomy. From time to time, Berwick Rangers has a good season and about two or three years ago it was doing extremely well. Generally, it does not do too well. It is vital to sustain our small clubs, of which Berwick Rangers is one.
A host of clubs in Scotland will have some difficulty in satisfying the requirements of the Taylor report. There is a similar situation in England where some football grounds will have big problems. I watch about 50 football matches every season and that means that I visit clubs of varying sizes—some with large parks and others in great difficulty. Consequently, that affects the rateable value of the grounds.
I confess that it would be a damned sight easier for me to talk about English football clubs than about Scottish ones, but in a sort of algebraic way there is a means of getting from the poorer English teams to the poorer


Scottish teams. I think that Hampden Park is being equipped and transformed and will have an official opening in the near future. The Minister may be able to confirm that. For us, Hampden Park is like Wembley is for England. It is is one of the most important places for football in Scotland.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman mentioned poorer teams in England and Scotland. In Scotland we have great teams and good teams, but no poor teams.

Mr. Boyes: There is always one, and today it happens to be the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie).
Hampden Park is one of the great places for football. When I was a young boy, my uncle used to take me to football matches up and down the country and a visit to Hampden Park was extremely special. I remember seeing a film of thousands of people running on to the pitch. I hope that, through the formula of the rating valuations, we can make Hampden Park even better. That is a value judgment, but many clubs would like to be in a similar position. A number of them might not have as much cash as they might have had because of what is happening at Hampden Park.
I shall return to Berwick and Hampden in a moment, particularly as Berwick is an English club in the Scottish league.

Mr. O'Neill: It may be interesting for my hon. Friend to note that a Scottish club from Gretna Green participated in the FA Cup last season, so there seems to be two-way traffic.

Mr. Boyes: I am glad that my hon. Friend nudged me on that point. I understand that Gretna Green has had a good run and is top of the league. It would have been remiss of me not to mention a Scottish football club that is in the English league. We have to recognise the smaller clubs and the bigger clubs and how they work, or not.
I mentioned seating in a short intervention that was too long for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Seating is a major problem. We all understand the need for it and why the Taylor report was necessary in view of the tragedies that had taken place. However, it represents a problem for a number of clubs. If we are not careful, some grounds will be half seating and half standing. That is the opposite of what we want.
Some fans like to stand. I would not give a jot for standing on a football ground. At the 50 games that I attend, I sit in the seating section, but many people want to stand and there has to be an area for that, even though, as a consequence, there will fewer seats. The Minister will recognise that it is an important point.

Mr. McFall: Does my hon. Friend accept that all-seater stadiums help prevent behaviour problems at football matches? For example, at the last Rangers-Celtic match at Ibrox I had the opportunity to view the security arrangements with Chief Superintendent Lawrence McIntyre. I asked him what his experience had been over the years and he said that undoubtedly all-seater stadiums have contributed immensely to good crowd control and good behaviour.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This has developed too far. Seating does not affect rating.

Mr. Boyes: It is all about the rating and valuation of football grounds.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am well aware what the order is about, but football behaviour does not affect rating valuations.

Mr. Boyes: It affects us when massive hordes of people come down from Scotland and start breaking up Newcastle. That happens occasionally, but in general we have a mutual trust and it is probably the most wonderful experience of all to be in a good, big stadium. The noise, the charm, the players, the referee, the whistle and the rest are extremely special.

Mr. Gallie: Is not it a fact that all-seater stadiums tend to charge more for access? The cost of sitting down in the ground is higher and the club's income is increased. With precise emphasis on the valuation, higher ticket prices increase the value of the ground so that seating has a profound effect on the rating implications for the clubs in future.

Mr. Boyes: The hon. Gentleman has made the point for me. There is greater revenue at all-seater football grounds. They produce more cash, often to the detriment of some fans. There are occasions at football grounds when people chant the name of the club and so on and that becomes an important part of the match. It is as much a part of football as kicking the ball. It is vital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) made an important point about all-seater stadiums, which have allowed the police to control the crowds better.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot develop that side of the argument. I ruled that out of order.

Mr. Boyes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am quite clear on that and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not return to that point. Behaviour is not a factor in relation to rating valuation.

Mr. Boyes: Recently I went to a stadium to watch the police in action.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I went to watch Northampton rugby football club, which is in the first division and plays wonderful rugby football. The fact that the police were there is irrelevant to the rating valuation of Franklins Gardens and is equally irrelevant to any of the football stadiums that the hon. Gentleman is about to mention. I should be grateful if he would desist on that particular line of argument.

Mr. Boyes: I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you allow me to mention it, I recently went to Sunderland football club to watch how the police managed crowd control. I go to football matches regularly and recently I visited Northampton, not for the rugby but for the football. That certainly needed some rating valuation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that Northampton town football club, the Cobblers, is bottom of the third division. I hope that his presence was not part of the reason we lost at home recently.

Mr. Boyes: That is how the expression cobblers originated.
Your information, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is spot on. The Northampton club was solidly rock bottom, but, under new management, it is now moving up the league. I played rugby as well as football, so I can understand why you


enjoy both. You enjoy the football, knowing exactly where the team is in the league, and the strong Northampton rugby union team. That shows how the two parts can make a whole.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: I fully intend to keep in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the order is tightly drawn.
It will not come as a surprise to the Minister or the House that I want to say a few words about the first division team, St. Mirren, which is internationally known and plays at Love street in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams). One reason why that team is internationally known is that it has twice won the Scottish cup. It does so every 30 years. It won it in 1957.

Mrs. Irene Adams: It has won it three times this century.

Mr. McMaster: I remember the celebrations in Paisley when we picked up the title again in 1987. I am coming to the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to illustrate my background in this matter. I do not go to St. Mirren games all that often, but then that is the hallmark of a true St. Mirren supporter. I will be at the game on Saturday along with a constituent of mine, Jim Crawford.

Mr. John McAllion: My hon. Friend says that honesty is the hallmark of a true St. Mirren supporter. If so, does my hon. Friend accept that, when St. Mirren won the Scottish cup in 1987, Dundee United was robbed because it was by far the better team?

Mr. McMaster: That is a scurrilous allegation and I am surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you did not call my hon. Friend to order. I was there and it was a fair game —but I shall not go down that track.

Mr. Gallie: . Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McMaster: I will, but reluctantly.

Mr. Gallie: The honest team is Ayr United, whose players are known as the honest men. St. Mirren are known as the buddies. The real link between St. Mirren and Ayr United is the fact that both play in black and white, but Ayr United is marginally superior.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This tour of the Scottish league is interesting, but it needs to be related to the order. If the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) intends to talk about valuation matters, he is in order, but any more descriptions of former matches or former glories are out of order.

Mr. McMaster: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was taken in the wrong direction by hon. Members. I shall come to the point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North and I met St. Mirren during its attempt to put together a package to improve its ground, which it has now done. Recently, we received a letter from the Football Trust saying that it had been awarded £1 million for a collaborative venture to

improve the ground. Its partners in that venture are Paisley university, which will benefit from additional student accommodation as part of the deal, and Scottish Homes.
Can the Minister give us an assurance that the order will not work to the detriment of St. Mirren because it is improving its ground? The Minister referred to that in general terms in his opening speech. St. Mirren is not only improving its ground but providing student accommodation. I hope that the housing element will not give rise to a dispute about the football ground benefiting in whatever way it can from the order. I shall understand if the Minister cannot answer that specific point tonight, but I shall be grateful if he will deal with the general point and write to me later.
Given the Minister's ability to get parts of his constituency mentioned in legislation, I am surprised that there is no mention of Arthurlie in the order. That, too, is an excellent team—even if it is not quite as good as Johnstone Burgh.
Will the Minister clarify three points? First, the order refers to circumstances in which two clubs share the same football ground. Many football pundits have predicted that that will happen more and more in the years ahead, especially with small football teams. Will the Minister clarify the exact position in respect of two football clubs sharing one ground?
Secondly, will the Minister clarify the reference in the order to the revenue from executive boxes? Some football clubs, by their very nature, are likely to benefit from corporate marketing techniques. For example, Glasgow Rangers and, even more so now, Glasgow Celtic will benefit from corporate marketing. But what about small clubs that do not have tremendous executive facilities? Likewise, the order refers to the revenue earned from season tickets. Will the Minister clarify how the order will impact on the sale of season tickets?
The third issue is currently receiving some attention because of the proposed reorganisation of local government in Scotland. Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), made a statement to the effect that each of the more than 30 new police authorities in Scotland will be responsible for policing football grounds in its area and that the cost will be rechargeable to the club. The Minister specifically said that the cost of policing within football grounds was rechargeable to the club. What charges will be levied for crowd control outside the football ground but within its immediate vicinity?
Can the Minister give me an assurance that the order contains safeguards against the possibility of a police authority that sees a reduction in its revenue as a result of the order being tempted to increase police charges in order to compensate for that? That is an important point because, if that happened, the order would be meaningless. Opposition Members have welcomed the order today, but we would be concerned if that happened.
I leave the matter there and hope that the Minister will deal with the specific questions that I have asked.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) took me back to my boyhood days as an extemely poor and inadequate footballer. I played at the


Johnstonei Burgh and Arthurlie grounds. They were some of the worst grounds on which I ever played; I would have been as well off playing on a farmer's field. If the Minister could use any good graces to try to improve those grounds for the generations ahead that might use them, I should be grateful.
I welcome the order. In my boyhood days, I used to watch Morton at Cappielow. Hon. Members may have worked out that I come from Greenock so I would follow Morton at Cappielow; the only possible reason for my following Morton was that I came from that part of town. I remember the days when Morton was owned by T J Thompson. The ground had no enclosure. We had to stand in the pouring rain with the tide coming in because the drains were dammed back. Anything that encourages any football ground to develop and not be penalised as regards its rateable value is to be welcomed. I welcome the order because it is based on income and receipts rather than on an ability to preserve historic buildings within grounds or to develop the grounds in any way.
My constituency does not have any league football teams, but it has the junior football team of Kirkintilloch Rob Roy. I reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about junior football going through a bit of a struggle nowadays. I should be grateful if the Minister would see what he can do to preserve teams such as Kirkintilloch Rob Roy and to help them with their difficulties, because most of my constituents disperse on Saturdays to watch the major teams in the city—Partick Thistle, Rangers and Celtic.
I ask the Minister to find out what will be the change, if any, in the amount that will be paid by Partick Thistle under the order. It has a smaller income, an excellent, well-preserved ground and splendid buildings in the east stand. The order particularly helps such teams.
I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify two points in connection with the order. Page 4 says:
'league ground' means a ground being used by a club in membership of the Scottish Football League as at 1st April 1993 as its sole or main ground for staging league matches.
Will the Minister confirm that if a league club possesses a second ground, it will be rated under a separate system? Suppose that a club played its reserve games at the second ground. Would it be rated under a second system? Would any income from the reserve games—remember that they are based under the Scottish Football League—be considered for the evaluation of the rateable value? That is more of an academic point, as I understand that there is a football league club that has a second ground and is making it into a car park rather than using it for the second team. That is an important point. Is the second ground rated under the old system? If so, what about the income that it may get through the box from that?
Just how far out does a ground go for rating purposes? Is there some technical easy answer? What about car parks that are owned by the club and surround grounds? They may be contiguous with the ground or they may not. If they are, do they come under the rating arrangements? If they are not contiguous with ground, is that considered? There is a great problem with parking at football matches, with people parking up every side street. More and more clubs are trying to develop their own car parking spaces and that is a welcome move.
What about buildings on the car parks? Would they be part of the old or part of the new system? I hope that the order will lead to improvements in grounds such as

Cappielow park, where I remember those bitter early days, and will help to preserve some of the attractive buildings that some clubs have at the moment.

Mr. John McAllion: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the order. I apologise for my earlier absence from the debate, particularly as I hold the position of secretary of the all-party Scottish sports group. Perhaps I should have been here at 5 o'clock. I can explain my absence because I am not good at reading the Order Paper and I did not realise that the statutory instrument was being debated at this point.

Mr. McMaster: That is no excuse.

Mr. McAllion: Perhaps more of an excuse is the fact that I was involved in a sporting activity between 5 and 6 o'clock, when I attended, with my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) the betting shop along the road to collect our winnings on Lady Polly, who romped home at four to one last night and is owned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. Had we not been collecting our winnings, I am sure that we would have been here from the beginning of the debate and heard what the Minister said when introducing the order—

Mr. Donald Dewar: Just condemn him anyway.

Mr. McAllion: Usually, as the Minister well knows, I am quick to condemn him at every opportunity, but when he is doing something positive, he deserves the congratulations of hon. Members on both sides of the House. As the Minister is aware, the all-party Scottish sports group has a long history of campaigning for precisely the kind of measure that has been introduced today.
I have a note of the minute of the meeting that the all-party Scottish sports group held with representatives of the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Football League on 4 February 1991, in which they drew our attention to the problem of the rating of football grounds and the continuing differences in the rating evaluation as applied to football clubs in Scotland and those south of the border. At that time, they were saying that, whereas the Inland Revenue had agreed a formula for assessing the liability of clubs in the south that was based on their income and ability to pay, in Scotland, the traditional assessment of liability in accordance with capital values included assessments of the value of capital improvements still applied.
That was very unjust. I remember that, at the meeting with the SFA, it drew a comparison between Scunthorpe and St. Johnstone FC in Perth, which, as the Minister knows, were similar clubs. Yet because of the way that rating evaluation was carried out in England, Scunthorpe was paying only £12,000 a year in rates whereas St. Johnstone would have been required to pay £90,000.
I remember being told at that time by the SFA that the reason why the Government were finding it difficult—even the Minister explained at some point their problems in introducing a similar system north of the border—was because of the Scottish assessors, who were reluctant to give up the formula that existed at that time. I am grateful


if the Minister was able to break down the resistance of the Scottish assessors and ensure that, at long last, Scotland can be placed on the same footing as the rest of the country, particularly England and Wales.
I welcome to the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), the chairman of the all-party Scottish sports group, who perhaps more than any other Member, has been active in promoting the order.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated the Labour party's ability to cause inflation. In the figures given earlier by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) the sum paid by St. Johnstone was £65,000. The hon. Gentleman has now put that up to £90,000. Perhaps that is just an aspect of his exaggeration. Other than that, I agree with him.

Mr. McAllion: It is not an aspect of my exaggeration. I have here the manuscript note that I took at the meeting in Glasgow in February 1991, which was addressed by the Scottish Football League and the Scottish football authorities who gave us those figures. I took them down at the time. I have just removed them from my file upstairs, so that figure is reasonably accurate given that it came from the SFA and Scottish Football League, who know something about that.
Following that meeting, we wrote to the then Chancellor in 1991—I am not allowed to use his name and I do not know his constituency but he was the Chancellor with a haircut like a badger, if I may describe it in those terms. We wrote to ask him whether perhaps in the Budget that year he would introduce measures to equalise the position between Scotland and England and Wales. He wrote back on 1 March 1991 saying that he could assure us that our comments would be taken on board, but that naturally it would be inappropriate for him to comment before he introduced his Budget for that year. Budgets have come and gone since and we are no nearer to getting such measures introduced.
We continued to lobby after that. I remember writing to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), asking him to meet a delegation from the all-party sports group to discuss the matter. I must apologise to him: shortly afterwards, we failed to show up on the date that had been arranged. That was not the all-party group's fault; the fault was entirely my own. I, as secretary of the group, had got the date wrong, and had failed to warn the Minister.
I am grateful for the fact that, after a long history punctuated by disappointments, we have at last reached this stage. I hope, however, that—given my earlier absence —the Minister will say something about the impact of the changes on Dundee's two football clubs, Dundee United and Dundee FC. Their positions are very different: as the Minister knows, Dundee United has carried out an extensive refurbishment of its ground at Tannadice, while Dundee FC has a long way to go in terms of the refurbishment of its own ground. I am sure that—despite its present lowly position in the Premier League, and the threat of resignation hanging over it—Dundee FC will, in the long term, become one of the mainstay clubs in the Premier League, with a very bright future.
Will the Minister tell us how the new system will affect the capital investment that clubs must make to meet the

requirements of the Taylor report? Will any limits be set for investment to improve football grounds? Could two clubs benefit from an incentive to share a single ground?
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) mentioned the revenue from executive boxes. I hope that the Minister will deal with the question of all the outside revenue received by some clubs, which has nothing to do with attendance at matches. The big clubs—Rangers and Celtic in particular—sell a range of products, through shops and other retail outlets: tracksuits, strips, pillow slips and duvet covers, for instance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Celtic shares?"] Given the kind of money that Celtic offers for players, sometimes a duvet cover would be all that it could get. That is probably all behind the club now, however: I am sure that everything will change, now that there is a new management at Celtic park. I do not mean a new football manager; I am talking about the directors.
What about the expenses incurred by clubs in paying for policing—not only inside the grounds, but outside, to deal with such matters as traffic? I understand that, at present, clubs need not incur such expenses, but that they may well have to in the future, following the Government's reform of Scottish local government and the institution of new authorities. Those authorities may wish to impose charges of that kind, especially in view of the terrible information imparted yesterday to the Standing Committee considering the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). He said that policing costs were likely to arise, especially in cities, because they would in future be fully responsible for meeting those costs: the costs would no longer be met by regional councils.
What, if anything, will the order imply for junior clubs, such as those in my own city—Downfield and St. Joseph's, which recently reached the semi-finals of the Scottish junior cup? Those two outstanding clubs attract reasonable support in the city, and have a bright future. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) Is a stalwart supporter of Pollok Juniors; will the Minister tell us what may happen to that club? Will the order apply only to football clubs, or will it apply to rugby clubs and other sporting groups as well?
Finally, may I ask about the implications for Hampden, the national ground? It will have a magnificent stadium, once the SFA has completed its phased refurbishment. I think that football in Scotland should be given every possible encouragement—especially in view of recent results. It would be unfortunate if, having made a tremendous effort to invest in Hampden, the SFA received no reward, and was left with liability for rates levied unfairly in comparison with those incurred by other football grounds.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I apologise for having missed the early part of the debate owing to Select Committee business.
Like others, I welcome the order, as does the all-party parliamentary Scottish sports group of which I am convener; my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is the secretary. As the Minister knows, we have been active on this issue for many years. There is a long-standing anomaly whereby many Scottish football clubs face rates bills four or five times the size of those


faced by their counterparts south of the border, arid we have put pressure on the Government for some time to eradicate that unfair arrangement.
We have had meetings with Jim Farry, chief executive of the Scottish Football Association, and with representatives of the Scottish Football League. The point has been put to us cogently and articulately on those occasions, backed up with facts and figures. I am glad that, eventually, the Government have admitted the existence of an unfair anomaly—and, moreover, are taking action by means of the order. This is a belated but nevertheless welcome fulfilment of a commitment given some time ago.
I understand that a degree of retrospection, or retroaction, is involved in the order; I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that the arrangements will be backdated, rather than simply coming into effect from the beginning of the next financial year.
The reason for the anomaly was the difference in the methods of valuation of football grounds used in Scotland and south of the border. In Scotland, valuation was based on the contractor's principle; in England, it tended to be based on the revenue principle. That led to a disincentive for many Scottish clubs to improve their grounds in line with the recommendations of the Taylor report.
Safety must, of course, be uppermost in our minds, in the light of incidents in both Scotland and England, when the safety and comfort of football supporters have not been up to the standard that they deserve. If the Government wish to encourage clubs to implement the recommendations of the Taylor report, they should bear it in mind that the deadline for the establishment of all-seater stadiums for Scottish premier division clubs is the beginning of next season—August 1994.
Under the existing valuation system, if clubs spent perhaps millions of pounds in improving stadiums, the rateable value of those stadiums increased, as did their rates bills. In a sense, those clubs were being penalised for improving their grounds. Such a grave disincentive to the implementation of the recommendations in the Taylor report is very unfair, and I am glad that the Government are at last responding.
A few months ago, we went to see the Minister to press the case for the measure. We were told that virtually all clubs in the Scottish football league would benefit from the Government's proposals. However, my recollection is that, when we pressed the Minister for further details, we were informed that a couple of clubs—not many more than that—might stand to lose under the new regulations. In other words, their rates bill would increase rather than decrease. I was somewhat astounded to find that one of the clubs—I speak from memory—was East Stirlingshire football club, which is based in my constituency. I suppose that I should declare an interest as I am a shareholder, albeit a very modest one, in that club. It is my only claim to dabbling in capitalism.
I can assure the Minister that attendances at Firs Park, the home of East Stirlingshire football club, are not huge although the club probably has more supporters than the Scottish Tory party, even if that is not saying very much. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether East Stirlingshire football club and perhaps one or two others in the Scottish Football League will face an increase in their rates bill, rather than a decrease, as a result of the order. If so, will he quantify the increase and explain it, because it appears that the new valuation is to be based on the revenue principle—the number of people coming

through the turnstiles at Firs Park—so I fail to understand how on earth the rates bill can be increased compared with the bill under the present system which is based on the contractor's principle.
In spite of the general welcome for the measure, there is also extreme disappointment that Hampden Park has apparently been excluded. The reason given by the Minister at his meeting with the all-party Scottish sports group was that it would be unfair to base Hampden Park's rateable value on the average attendances at Queen's Park football club's home matches. That is a fair point, and we accepted it, but I suggested at the meeting that, although the formula in the order might not be applicable in the case of the national stadium, it was surely not beyond the wit of the Minister and his advisers to devise a different formula not simply based on the home attendances at Queen's Park matches but taking into account attendances at international matches, cup finals, cup semi-finals and other big matches held at the national stadium. I am sorry that the Minister has apparently not seen fit to do so. That is one aspect of our campaign that we shall continue in order to get a fair deal for the national stadium and for Queen's Park as well as other Scottish football clubs.
I realise that this is an interim order in the sense that there will be a general revaluation next year. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of the 1995 revaluation to introduce a more radical comprehensive change to implement a solution that will include Hampden Park and perhaps many of the smaller stadiums which are excluded by the order, which refers only to clubs in the Scottish Football League, not to those in the Highland league or the junior football leagues.
The Minister should seize on the 1995 revaluation as an opportunity to have a far more radical look at the system of valuation for football stadiums so that we can get a fairer deal not only for all clubs in the Scottish league, including East Stirlingshire, but for all junior clubs and Queen's Park, the Scottish Football Association and Hampden Park, the national stadium.
We appreciate the fact that the Government have given some assistance to improve the national stadium. The first phase of the improvements is to be opened officially next week—a week tonight—with an international match against the Netherlands, which will be a great occasion. I urge the Government to think not only of the first phase but to ensure that there is adequate Government support for future phases of the Hampden Park redevelopment so that the Scottish football team and its supporters are given the national stadium that they deserve.

Mr. Stewart: I do not criticise the hon. Members who arrived late for the debate and raised proper issues with which I had dealt earlier. However, I do not want to repeat myself.
I must tell the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) that, in opening the debate, I paid tribute to him and the all-party Scottish sports group for their work. There is therefore nothing personal in the fact that East Stirlingshire is to lose as a result of the changes. The current assessment of East Stirlingshire, which, as far as I can see, is the lowest in the Scottish Football League, is to rise from £1,350 to £1,900 under the proposals.
I am glad that I have rather better news for my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). Ayr United—the honest men—is to benefit from a reduction of about a third in its rateable value.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) will be delighted to know that Partick Thistle's current assessment of £13,500 is to be reduced to £3,800, so that there will no doubt be celebration among the Jags supporters.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) will be interested to know that the current assessment of £4,750 will be reduced to £2,500.

Mr. McMaster: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's perfectly right and proper question about St. Mirren. He will be happy to know that St. Mirren will benefit by a reduction of £3,600 in its formula valuation. The money will no doubt be put to good use. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman absolutely on the issue of ground improvements, which was also raised by a number of other hon. Members. The fact that we are moving to a formula based on clubs' home league gate receipts from the 1987–88 season will benefit those clubs that will be making improvements for Taylor or other reasons because their rateable values will not increase as they would have done under the previous system. I shall take away and examine the hon. Gentleman's other question about the precise development at Love street, although, finally, it would be a matter for the assessor.
I am grateful for the general welcome given to the order. Hon. Members asked about the definition of gate receipts. I can confirm that it includes income from executive boxes, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden.

Mr. McAllion: I hope that the Minister does not mind my intervening, but I am feeling a little left out because he has told all the other hon. Members about their teams—what is to happen to the two Dundee teams?

Mr. Stewart: I have good news for the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). Dundee United's current assessment of £47,000 will be reduced to £26,800. Dundee's assessment of £25,000 will be reduced to £24,100, but, of course, if it implements the improvements to which to hon. Gentleman refers, it will benefit from the present system compared to what would have occurred under the previous system. With that menu of good news to hon. Members on both sides of the House, I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Football Grounds (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.—

Resolved,
That the draft Telecommunications Industry (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Nuclear Installations (Limits of Liability)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the draft Nuclear Installations (Increase of Operators' Limits of Liability) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved—[Mr. Eggar].

Mr. Martin O'Neill: The Minister seems almost to have pulled off a three-card trick in that opponents of the nuclear industry will welcome recognition of an increase in liabilities and those in favour of the nuclear industry will recognise that it is an upgrading to take account of inflation. In that respect, everybody concerned with the nuclear industry will be satisfied. To that extent, we must congratulate the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Legal Aid and Advice (Scotland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move,
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions:
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
That the draft Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Regulations 1994, which were laid before, this House on 7th March, be approved.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The first two sets of regulations provide for the uprating of the financial eligibility limits for civil legal aid and for advice and assistance. They adjust the financial limits to effect changes in the level of social security benefits, which will be operative from 11 April.
The third and fourth sets of regulations provide for the extension of assistance by way of representation, which is a form of advice and assistance under the legal aid arrangements to cover a number of straightforward cases and to exclude the same cases from eligibility for criminal legal aid. They are technical changes designed to streamline and improve the administration of the legal aid system.
We shall also shortly be laying before the House further regulations under the negative resolution procedure to enact a number of further minor and technical amendments and improvements to the legal aid system in Scotland.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Under-Secretary of State have any evidence easily available on the effect of the changes in the past year to those regulations? I suspect that the evidence that we have is anecdotal and I do not know whether there is any factual basis for it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what the effect has been on overall expenditure. In 1987–88, expenditure was £49 million for legal aid in general in Scotland and the estimated figure for 1993–94 is £118 million, which is, of course, a substantial increase, notwithstanding the changes that occurred and which the House debated at approximately the same time last year, if my memory serves me correctly.
It may be helpful if I briefly describe each of the sets of regulations in a little more detail. As hon. Members will know, eligibility for civil legal aid and advice and assistance depends on a person's disposable income. 'That is income after allowances have been made for central expenditure such as housing costs, local taxes, dependants' allowances and a number of others. People at or below the lower limit of disposable income are entitled to legal aid covering the whole costs of their case or of the advice that they receive without paying any contribution. The upper limit for civil legal aid and advice and assistance relates to the level of income above which no legal aid is payable.

People whose income falls between those two limits are eligible for civil legal aid or advice and assistance subject to the payment of a contribution which is directly related to their level of disposable income.
The Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1994 raise the lower disposable income limit for civil legal aid from £2,293 to £2,382 a year. The regulations also increase the upper limit from £6,800 to £7,060 a year. The Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations of 1994 provide for a similar uprating in relation to advice and assistance. In those cases, the calculation is carried out on the basis of weekly income. The regulations—

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall give way in a moment. The regulations raise the lower limit from £61 to £63 and the upper limit from £147 to £153. The regulations also revise the scale of contributions for applicants with disposable income between the upper and lower income limits for advice and assistance.

Mr. Dalyell: I understand clearly that legal aid does not apply to the work of the Child Support Agency, at least in general terms, but that, of course, legal advice and assistance does. Due to the difficulties that all of us have had with child support-related cases, which we see at our surgeries, is there any easily available figure—there may not be and I would not complain too much about it—of how much advice and assistance has been allocated to the general heading of child support?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I do not have that figure readily available, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the mechanisms by which social security benefits are taken into account for the purposes of calculating legal aid vary according to the benefit and the provisions of the legal aid legislation. For example, income support and family credit recipients automatically receive free advice and assistance. Income support and various other non means-tested social security benefits, such as attendance allowance, mobility allowance and disability living allowance are disregarded in the calculation of disposable income for civil legal aid. I shall make inquiries on the point which the hon. Gentleman raises and I shall write to him in due course.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I develop my argument, then the hon. Gentleman can intervene?

Mr. Canavan: I wish to ask about the figures.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have said that I shall find out what information I can and I shall write to the—

Mr. Canavan: It is not on the same point.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Very well.

Mr. Canavan: The Minister referred to increasing the upper limit of weekly disposable income from £147 a week to £153 a week and to an increase in the lower limit from £61 to £63. How on earth did the Government arrive at those figures?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The uprating has taken place after consultation with the Law Society. The changes that we are making to eligibility limits for civil


legal aid and advice and assistance are essentially routine upratings of the current levels. I should make it clear that there is no need for formal consultation on those changes, either with the Law Society or with any other interests. However, over changes in other areas that we are proposing, we have had discussion and consultation with the Law Society as appropriate. For example, on the question of a revised fee structure for solicitors undertaking legal aid in cases in sheriff courts, we have benefited from detailed discussions with the Law Society on the background and the rationale for the categories of fees to be prescribed, while making it clear that, in accordance with Government policy, the overall effect of the restructuring should be cost-neutral. We have taken into account the views of the Law Society of Scotland, which it has developed in discussion with the Scottish Legal Aid Board on the revision that we proposed to the detailed provisions for the undertaking of work as a matter of special urgency in civil cases funded by legal aid.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall give way in a moment.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West, the proposed changes represent an increase of 3.8 per cent., matching the uprating level of income-related social security benefits. They are entirely straightforward and do not introduce any new provisions into that area of the legal aid system. The regulations are proposed to come into force on 11 April, the day when the annual social security uprating comes into effect.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister list in the Official Report or place in the Library details of the discussions that have taken place with the Law Society of Scotland and with the Scottish Legal Aid Board indicating who was present and what criteria were used to define the figures have been enunciated in the statutory instruments?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Lady reads the report of what I have said, she will see that I have explained clearly on what issues the discussions and consultations took place. We have benefited from the views of the Law Society on the revision of the rules governing the circumstances in which a solicitor may write off any contribution payable by a legally aided person towards the cost of advice and assistance. In addition, the Minister of State met representatives of the Law Society on 7 February to discuss, among other things, fees for solicitors in legally aided cases. We have therefore undertaken discussion and consultation wherever appropriate, but not in cases where clear Government policy would make consultation unnecessary and inappropriate.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about advice and assistance in child support cases. In answer to his question, I have just been advised that information on the breakdown is not available in the form requested.

Mr. John McFall: The Minister said that he had consulted the Law Society and others. For the record, will he tell us whether the Law Society and others agreed with the financial levels on which eligibility will be based?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I was not present at the meeting with the Law Society, so I cannot give its views in detail. However, I can say that the changes represent an increase of 3.8 per cent., which I believe will be generally welcomed.
The Advice and Assistance—

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I finish developing my point? The hon. Gentleman can intervene in a moment.
The Advice and Assistance (Assistance By Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1994 and the Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Regulations 1994 make slight changes to the legal aid system. They extend the availability of assistance by way of representation, which is a form of advice and assistance extended to include representation in court in certain straightforward cases, thus avoiding the need for the applicants to go through the more complex procedures for obtaining either full criminal or full civil legal aid.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister courteously told me that the information that I asked for was not available in the form in which it was requested. In what form is it available?

Lord James Douglas Hamilton: The information is certainly not available in the form in which the hon. Gentleman requested it. A breakdown of figures is given, but not in that form. The fact that information is not available in the form in which it has been requested is a parliamentary answer given when statistics are not available in the form required by an hon. Member. All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that if he examines carefully all the statistics that have been issued he will see the form in which they have been expressed—

Mr. Dalyell: That is part of the trouble, as we are finding in Committee on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. It is preposterous—I use that word in the presence of the Secretary of State—that increasingly, as time goes on, our questions are being totally unanswered in any sensible form.

Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the habit of the House to refrain from discussing in the Chamber what is happening in Standing Committee?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There has been nothing out of order in the debate while I have been in the Chair. If there had been I would have put a stop to it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I can make it clear to the hon. Member for Linlithgow that the statistics available are the aggregate figures for advice and assistance. He is welcome to table as many questions as he likes, and we shall endeavour to give as helpful replies as we can within the framework of what is readily available.
I was asked earlier about the Law Society's agreement. The Law Society was not consulted on the levels, which were increased as a matter of Government policy. I should also make it clear that the two sets of regulations to which I have referred make assistance by way of representation available in respect of proceedings under part V of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984—that is, proceedings


before the sheriff in relation to detention or guardianship under that Act. I remember that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) had an interest in that subject.
The regulations also make assistance by way of representation available in respect of proceedings in cases of failure to comply with the requirements of a probation order or in relation to offences committed during probation, of proceedings in relation to failure to comply with the requirements of a community service order or supervised attendance order, and in relation to applications under section 42 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 for the removal of a driving disqualification.
In all such cases, assistance by way of representation will be available directly from the applicant's solicitor, except that in the case of applications for the removal of a driving disqualification, where the issues involved may be slightly more complex, the provision of assistance by way of representation is subject to the approval of the Scottish Legal Aid Board.
The regulations make provision for the uprating—

Mr. Menzies Campbell: If I understand what the Minister is telling the House, the two instruments will make available on an easier and much less formal basis existing representation which until now has required an application for a full legal aid certificate. That is a laudable effort by the Government to simplify proceedings in certain cases specified in the regulations.
Do I also understand the Minister to say that there is an addition, in the sense that proceedings under part V of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 are now eligible for support through assistance by way of representation? I believe that that is an addition to the existing scheme, and if I am right it will also be welcomed by people who have an interest in such matters.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I believe that the provisions will be welcomed as an extension. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that such matters were about to be included in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, but that, if I remember correctly, time prevented us from going into the matter thoroughly. Supervised attendance orders were included in the context of that Act, and we are now taking the matter a stage further, which I believe will be welcomed in Scotland.
The regulations make provision for the uprating of eligibility limits and for other useful, if minor, changes in the system of legal aid in Scotland. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who has served on the Scottish Legal Aid Board, welcomes those changes, which are small but important in their own right. I strongly commend them to the House.

Mr. John McFall: I state immediately that the Opposition do not quibble with the upratings. Indeed, we welcome them. However, we must remember the genesis, which goes back to last year's autumn statement. To satisfy the Treasury, 18 months ago the Lord Chancellor said:
The overall cost of legal aid must be made more affordable. It must be better targeted towards those areas of work where it provides the most cost-effective service.
When Opposition Members hear the word "targeting" we know that it means cuts, and I am sure that that is what happened with the legal aid provisions. I well remember a

written answer to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on 16 November 1992, which said that the Minister intended to reduce the free income limit for eligibility from £3,060 per annum to the equivalent income support level of £2,213 per annum. It was admitted that that reduction was in line with the proposals for England and Wales previously announced by the Lord Chancellor.
Despite that written answer, a campaign was launched in Scotland to impress upon the Government the folly of their intended action. We are glad that the regulations were slightly changed and the lower level was changed from the equivalent of £2,213 per annum—the income support level —to £61 per week. But that still excluded many people in Scotland from applying for legal aid. Last year, the number was 250,000.
While we cannot quibble with the uprating—I am sure that the Law Society and others will be happy with the 3 per cent. uprating—we must take it back to the beginning. No one was happy with. the way in which the Government introduced the scheme last year and their original intention to keep it at the income support level. We now find that the original intention was to eliminate the contributory scheme. However, after campaigning, that was reinstated, and the amount was increased from £61 to £147 on a sliding scale. The Minister mentioned £63 for the lower end of the scale. We must be grateful for small mercies.
I looked at the research in the Library of the House for the last time that £63 was available for advice and research, and I had to go back to 1989. It is the same in 1994. In 1991, it was £70; in 1990, it was £64; and in 1989, it was just over £61. What we have here is back to the future with a vengeance; it is a retrograde step for the justice system in Scotland.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give the corresponding totals for the money spent on legal aid by the Scottish Office during that period? Was not the amount spent in 1989 substantially less in real terms than the figure announced today?

Mr. McFall: I am the first to admit that perhaps the expenditure has increased.
I thought that justice was for all. A system that excludes 250,000 people is one which denies justice to many people. That is the point of our argument. I hope that the hon. Member for Ayr will agree that if there is a pressing case for an individual to take a matter to court, especially cases of domestic violence, it would not matter if the individual had £1 million per week or £60 per week. Labour Members have been arguing on the basis of equity and accessibility to the courts.

Mr. Gallie: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. But at the same time, it does not matter what level is set—people just above the banding will always suffer. It is almost impossible to find an equitable banding.

Mr. McFall: I do not want to go too much into that argument. When the Lord Chancellor made the point about cutting back, he talked about the recession. In any recession, there will be casualties and references to the courts and justice. Therefore, the wider policies of the Government are contributing partly to the problem. The hon. Member for Ayr should keep that in mind. It is important to underline that fact, because we must look at the whole picture.
A major stumbling block in the achievement of efficiency is the way in which the courts are run. We have a massively underfunded prosecution system and the courts are clogged. An individual can get bail in the Glasgow sheriff court or district court, and find that it is one or two years before his or her case is taken up. In other words, the system is wasting money daily and the Government have done very little to rectify the problem.
I welcome the criminal legal aid regulations. I also welcome the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) about part V of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. I shall make one or two points about those regulations in the short time that is available.
I understand that we will see changes in probation order breaches, conviction and prevention, breaches of community service orders and disqualification for driving licence petitions. All those things will be taken out of criminal legal aid and put into the advice by way of representation scheme. The problem—I should like the Minister's opinion on this point—is that in the civil legal aid system there is not the same time for solicitors to have an in-depth investigation as there is in the criminal legal aid system.
Given that all participants have been through the criminal courts, will there be a duplication of administrative costs when there is a transfer from criminal legal aid to advice by way of representation? If there is such a duplication, will not that increase the costs for the Scottish Legal Aid Board, which will have to process two applications—one from criminal legal aid and one from the advice by way of representation scheme? We question the wisdom of simultaneously cutting costs and increasing administration.
As I said earlier, the Government will still exclude a section of society from one of the basic rights of citizenship, which is access to justice. As we heard last year, the Government's attitude could blight and wreck people's lives. That is why we will continue to argue against the principle of the Government's measures, although we welcome the 3 per cent. uprating provided in the regulations. However, there I give notice to the Government that the battle will continue on behalf of the many people in Scotland who will be excluded.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a time-limited debate and I know that other hon. Members want to catch your eye in the five minutes that remain. Therefore, I shall be brief and not talk about some of the points that I wish directly to raise with the Minister.
The Minister let the cat out of the bag when he admitted the importance of Government policy, which seems to take sway over any representations made by those who represent the legal fraternity in Scotland and, indeed, the people whom they in turn represent—our constituents. It is important to look at the historical aspect of the regulations and what has happened to legal aid in Scotland.
We welcome the uprating provided in the regulations. However, it seems that the very poor or the very rich will have access to justice while the vast majority of people —our constituents—will be denied assistance, be it in civil or criminal actions which they wish to raise in the courts

of Scotland. It has always been my fundamental belief that we are all equal before the law, irrespective of income and circumstances, and that right should be given to us.
Clearly, the Government are introducing a cost-cutting exercise in all aspects of legal aid. My final comment is a comment that was made by no less a person than Anthony Scrivener QC, who is the chairman of the Bar. In The Independent, he said:
The legal system is for the people and not for the lawyers or the judiciary. We are all servants of the community and if our legal system does not cater for those who need legal aid, then it does not deserve to be called a system of justice.
Clearly, in introducing these small improvements, the Minister has not addressed the issue of justice for the community.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I suppose that I should declare an interest as someone in full membership of the Faculty of Advocates. However, looking at the regulations, I think that it is unlikely that I will benefit either personally or professionally from any of the changes that the Government propose to institute.
I shall reiterate the point that I made when I intervened on the Minister earlier. I welcome the simplification with regard to what one might call, for shorthand purposes, the criminal elements of the regulations which the Minister introduced. Clearly, that is something to be welcomed. If it reduces any additional burden on the administration of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, it will be not only more convenient but more efficient in terms of the use of resources.
As for the availability of civil legal advice and assistance, however, if one tracks back over the history of the provision of civil legal aid since the first, principal Act was introduced into the House, it is clear from answers given by Ministers that the percentage of the population in Scotland that is eligible for legal aid has fallen continuously and that the original purpose of civil legal aid, which was to allow every individual in Scotland the opportunity of litigating without any restriction because of his or her financial means, has been substantially prejudiced. The Government may be perfectly happy for that to be so, but it is important on an occasion like this, while welcoming the uprating, which no one would want to vote against or to oppose, to reflect the fact that the number of people in Scotland who are eligible for legal aid is falling. That must mean more and more cases of the sort mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). It must mean that more and more people who should have the right to go to law—

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [11 March].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That, the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 7 March, be approved.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions on the other motions to be decided at that hour.

Resolved,
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 7 March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 7 March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 7 March, be approved.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords]

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are about to discuss an extremely important point for Welsh Members—a motion to amend the Standing Orders of the House in relation to the membership of Committees. I should like you to consider the constitutional implications of the decision that the House will take tonight, because the Bill deals with aspects of government in Wales. We want to know whether it is right that the Bill should be committed to a Standing Committee or whether, in view of its constitutional implications, it should be considered by a Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Such a motion was not moved last night. The matter could have been decided last night, but it was not.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I understand that last night a motion on this matter could have been tabled, do you accept that some parts of the Bill, particularly the schedules, have constitutional implications because of the way in which the legislation binds the way in which hon. Members are elected to the House? It was suggested yesterday that there was something not far removed from gerrymandering in those provisions. That must be a constitutional matter. Surely those parts must be taken on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the first point of order.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I beg to move,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees), any Standing Committee appointed for consideration of the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords] shall consist of twenty-eight Members, including not fewer than nineteen Members sitting for constituencies in Wales.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Sir Wyn Roberts: This is a procedural motion. It is not about the merits of the Local Government (Wales) Bill, which the House debated fully yesterday and which will be debated further in Committee and, later, on the Floor of the House. The motion relates to the constitution of the Standing Committee to consider the Bill.

Mr. Alex Carlile: rose—

Sir Wyn Roberts: Let me get on a little, if I may.
As Standing Order No. 86 is referred to in the motion, it may, be helpful to hon. Members if I remind them of its main requirements. With certain exceptions, it requires:
the Committee of Selection shall nominate not fewer than sixteen nor more than fifty Members to serve on each standing committee for the consideration of each bill".
It also requires the Committee of Selection to have regard to
the qualifications of those Members nominated and to the composition of the House".
There is then a third provision which states:
for the consideration of any public bill relating exclusively to Wales, the committee shall be so constituted as to include all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House what he thinks was the reason for the introduction of Standing Order No. 86(2)(ii). In particular, does he recognise that he made a wholly inaccurate statement to the House when he said that there was a "third" provision? Is it not right that the proviso is an overriding proviso that governs Standing Order No. 86?

Sir Wyn Roberts: It is for the House to decide how the proposed Committee is set up. The House can certainly override the measure if it follows this motion.
It is not possible to constitute a Committee that satisfies all three requirements of the Standing Order—one with no more than 50 members that reflects the composition of the House and includes all hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies. Whichever way one tries to form such a Committee, at least one of those requirements will not be met.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: rose—

Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall give way in a moment. We must provide a practical and precedented solution to a procedural difficulty.

Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So that the Minister of State—as always, he is doing his best to explain the position fairly to the House —can do so, will you confirm from the Chair that the requirement of 50 members does not apply under the Standing Order to Standing Committees relating to legislation that applies exclusively to Wales, because of the way in which the proviso is expressed? The right hon. Gentleman is speaking as though there were a requirement for a maximum of 50 members on such a Standing Committee. I submit to you that it is simply not so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is all a matter for debate in the context of this motion.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is a matter for debate, would it not be appropriate and a courtesy to the House if the Secretary of State were here to listen to the excuses that are given? He is the moving hand behind this measure and the individual Cabinet member who is now going to take away from Welsh Members the right to sit on a Committee that influences their own local authorities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the Secretary of State to decide.

Sir Wyn Roberts: All that I have said so far is based on the contents of Standing Order No. 86, and it is a matter for the House to decide.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The Minister has just explained that it is somehow impossible for all these parts to be made a part of the whole, for the Committee to reflect the balance on the Floor of the House yet also include all the hon. Members elected from Welsh constituencies. Why, then, was the Standing Order put down? At the time that it was put down, there was not a single unionist Member in Wales, and presumably, if it had been impossible to set the system up and keep all those things part of the whole, it would not have been set up in the first place.

Sir Wyn Roberts: It is not for me to fathom what was in the minds of our forebears who put down this Standing

Order. We seek to provide a practical and precedented solution to a procedural difficulty, and the Government's motion achieves precisely that.
Hon. Members will be interested to know that the Labour party's Welsh Language Act 1967, its Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 and the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 all had Standing Committee membership other than that specified in Standing Order No. 86.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does the Minister of State agree that in those three examples the setting aside of the Standing Order was done for the convenience of the House, and not for the convenience of the Government? It was done in the interests of both the Government and the Opposition because of Ministers and Front-Bench spokesmen, all of whom wanted not to be on a Committee on those Bills. It was, therefore, perfectly in order at the time, for the convenience of the House and of both sides, not on an opposed basis, to do that. What the right hon. Gentleman proposes, purely for the convenience of the Government and not for the convenience of the House, is entirely different.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The Committee stage of the Welsh Language Act 1967 was taken on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the Welsh Development Agency Bill and the Development of Rural Wales Bill were considered in Standing Committee. But there was a Labour Government at that time, and Labour Members were in the majority on the Committees. I cannot vouch for the circumstances at the time, but I guess that what was done was for the convenience of the Government of the day as well.

Mr. Alun Michael: Does the Minister recognise another major difference between the three Acts to which reference has been made and the Bill that we are considering? The former applied to Wales generally or to large tranches of Wales, whereas this Bill applies specifically to every local authority area and every constituency. There is nobody else who can speak for our constituencies—in my case, Penarth and part of Cardiff. That is why it is so outrageous that the right hon. Gentleman is pressing ahead with this departure from the Standing Orders.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman, like me, knows only too well that hon. Members have opportunities in addition to those provided in Standing Committee to declare their views. There will be a Report stage and a Third Reading on the Floor of the House, and we have already had the Second Reading.

Mr. Michael: The Minister knows full well that it is in Committee that details relating to individual constituencies are considered. That is why his answer is entirely irrelevant to the point that I made.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I have never known hon. Members, particularly on Report, to be held back when discussing details further to those that were dealt with in Standing Committee. The same applies to Third Reading.

Mr. Wigley: Has the right hon. Gentleman established with the Clerks of the House that it will be in order for every matter dealt with in Committee to be dealt with on


Report? Will the Government ensure that there is enough time for every such issue to be considered again on the Floor of the House so that we may all be involved?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is a matter not for me but for the Chair.
None of the motions to set up the membership of the Standing Committees to which I have referred, which were similar to the one that we are now considering, was opposed.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: In the case of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975, my recollection is that the rules were changed at the request of, and for the convenience of, the Opposition of the day.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sure that it was for the convenience of the then Government, as well. It may have been for the convenience of the then Opposition, as the current Opposition are only too happy to say time and again, but I cannot imagine that it would have been done had it not been for the convenience of the Labour Government.
The Opposition amendment proposes a Standing Committee of 63 members. That would be the largest Committee ever to deal with a Welsh Bill, and I guess that it would be somewhat unwieldy. It would certainly exceed the maximum of 50 specified in Standing Order No. 86.

Mr. Ray Powell: The Minister is talking about the Opposition amendment. I should like to take him back to the Government's proposal that the Committee consist of 28 members. Do the Government want a majority? If so, a membership of 28 would mean their having 15 places, leaving a mere 13 for 32 people. Would that be right? It would be far better and far more democratic if every Welsh Member were enabled to serve on the Committee. The Government's trumped-up scheme would deny at least 19 Opposition Members the right to membership of the Committee.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am coming to that point. By my calculation, the Opposition would have a majority on the Committee of 63 that they propose if they intend that it should include all Welsh Members. In that case, it would not reflect the composition of the House. It ought to be obvious that no Government would agree that their legislation should be dealt with by a Committee on which the Opposition had a majority. That is the answer to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. This is a Government Bill, and the Government ought to have a majority on the Standing Committee. I am genuinely surprised that the Opposition should seek to establish, for the purposes of a Government Bill, a Committee on which they have a majority.

Mr. Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for education, including mathematics, in Wales. He appears to have forgotten that one of the Committee members would be the Chairman and that, therefore, there would be only 31 Opposition members. Two times 3l is 62, so the Government would have a majority on a Committee of 63. Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the garbage that he has been talking for the past two minutes?

Sir Wyn Roberts: My mathematics tells me that the Government would not have a majority. I am sure that it is absolutely right to say that they would be dependent on the

Chair. [Interruption.] I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to think about what I have just said—what the Opposition propose would leave the Government without a majority and dependent on the Chair.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister please check his mathematics again? If he sticks to the case that he has just made, he will be impugning the integrity of the Chairman, who, as a distinguished member of the Speaker's Panel, is prevented by the rules—as I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will confirm—from being counted as a Opposition member. I am sure that I am correct in respect of this matter, as in respect of the mathematics. The Minister ought to be honest enough to reconsider what he has just said.

Sir Wyn Roberts: On the basis of the figures that the hon. Gentleman has produced, I conclude that the two sides would be equal, the 63rd vote being held by the Chair. I much prefer the Government's proposed Committee of 28 members.

Mr. Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems that the Minister is casting doubt on the normal proceedings of the House. Can you clarify the position—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I much prefer a membership of 28, and I am sure that the House will conclude that the Government are right. A Committee of that size would be small enough to work effectively and large enough to reflect the composition of the House, thereby ensuring representation for the minority parties. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I beg to move, leave out from the second "or to end and add "sixty-three Members".
Having listened to the speech of the Minister of State, I think that it would have been much better if he had stayed in Catalonia, where he might have learnt a bit more about democracy. His mathematics is absolutely absurd. The position of the Chairman of a Committee removes him from the configuration of the Opposition, although he or she counts towards a quorum. Thus, under our proposal, the Opposition would have only 31 members, and the Government would have a majority for all normal purposes of voting. The Minister should, therefore, check the rules of the House and how Committees are constituted. In his opening remarks, he attempted to stir up apathy, as he usually does wherever he goes in Wales, but he should produce some sort of argument for setting aside, for the third time in just under two years, the rules of the House.

Mr, Jonathan Evans: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will help me with his Aberpergau mathematics. He said that the Committee would contain 31 Opposition Members and the chairman, which leaves 31 Conservative Members. How would that give a Government majority?

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman should remember that it would be possible for the Government—so I am instructed by the authorities of the House—not to count the Chairman as a member of the Committee, even though he would count towards a quorum. The hon. Gentleman is


welcome to check that with the Clerks of the House, as I did yesterday. I think that he will find that my mathematics are correct and my understanding of the procedure is the same as that of the House authorities.

Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Minister's argument has a serious bearing on the motion? The Minister includes the Chair of the Committee in the number that he regards as appropriate. He must, therefore, include the Chair among the 28 members mentioned in the motion. If the Chair were taken out, only 27 members would be left—a totally different understanding of the composition of the Committee from that given by the usual channels.

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is only for the purpose of a quorum that the Chairman of a Committee counts towards its membership. Therefore, the Minister's mathematics are wrong.
The Minister of State's argument is fundamentally flawed now, as it was during discussions on 9 June 1992 on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and 7 June 1993 on the Welsh Language Bill. We face a sort of triple crown of the democratic deficit in Wales. It is the equivalent of England trying to get 15 extra players on the field on Saturday to ensure the right result. The people of Wales would object to that on Saturday, as they object to the undermining of the principle of democracy in Wales tonight. The Government cannot move the goalposts all the time in respect of Welsh legislation.
The Standing Orders of the House make special provision for Welsh legislation. The best thing for the Government to do—the sooner they do it, the better—would be to leave the Standing Orders alone in relation to Welsh legislation and accept that they have been put there for a specific purpose. The Government should not try to alter the Standing Orders every time such matters come before the House.
The problem faced by the Opposition is to understand why the Government use the same explanation each time that the matter arises. Reference has already been made to it by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Each time, the Government try to say that the Standing Orders are defective. That is an absurd proposition. One cannot say that the Standing Orders, which have been in existence since 1907, are defective or inherently self-contradictory. That is an absurd proposition, which was the Minister's argument. He repeated what the Secretary of State said almost a year ago when he broke his duck in his current job, although that speech was even more abbreviated than that of the Minister of State's.
The Government's argument is that, as the Committee should not have more than 50 members and must reflect the composition of the House in terms of Government and Opposition—with a built-in Government majority—the third provision cannot be met. That final provision is that all Welsh Members must be members of the Committee. That is not what Standing Order No. 86 says.
Standing Order No. 86 contains a third provision that plainly overrides the first two—it makes an exception for Welsh legislation. It provides that, for Welsh legislation, all Welsh Members shall sit on the Standing Committee. It does not say that three co-equal propositions—the

Government majority, the maximum of 50 members and the fact that all Welsh Members should serve on the Standing Committee—should be juggled around. It does not state, "Something's got to give, so try to fit them in as best you can. Perm any two out of three and see if you can come up with Littlewoods' home banker." It is not like that.
The final provision of Standing Order No. 86 is plainly meant to override its other provisions in terms of Welsh legislation. The Government will not accept that, and we all know why. They want to steamroller all Welsh legislation through unwilling Welsh Members in the House of Commons, who reflect the views of a Welsh people who are extremely unwilling to accept Tory Government proposals for Wales. That is the problem which the Government must face. They cannot win the votes normally and democratically on Welsh matters, so they have to use the undemocratic steamroller to try to push their legislation through the House.
In 1907, democratic support for the Tory Government was even worse, if that is possible to imagine, than it is now. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) said that the Conservatives experienced a total wipe-out in the 1906 general election. Not one Tory Member of Parliament was returned. They were lucky to get the nil, as it is sometimes said after football matches after one side has had a thrashing. The Tories are slightly better off now—they have six Welsh Members out of 38 —but they still have a problem.
The Standing Orders are not meant to serve the convenience of the Government. They are meant to protect democracy. The nature of the United Kingdom is at stake tonight. The UK is not one homogeneous nation state comprising 651 Members of Parliament who all represent the same sort of constituency. As its name shows, the United Kingdom is an amalgam of four different home countries. That is why Standing Order No. 86 contains specific provision for Scottish legislation and Welsh legislation in the constitution of the Grand Committees and the Standing Committees. The Government say, "Yes, we know that's there, but we are going to ignore it. Every time it comes up, we are going to set it aside." I know that there are set-aside schemes in agriculture, but we do not want such schemes for dealing with the fundamental democratic rights of the smaller countries that make up the UK. The UK works only because there is protection for the smaller parts of the United Kingdom—Scotland and Wales—to prevent them from being abused and pushed around by the much larger majority, England, when legislation goes through the House.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify this point? When Labour formed the minority Government in the 1970s, it presumably had an overall minority in England. In matters affecting England, did it have a minority on the various Committees of the House?

Mr. Morgan: Provision for England, which comprises 82 per cent. of the total of the UK, is much less specific because it does not need the same measure of protection. But there is special provision for England. Earlier today, there was a debate on the redundant churches legislation that applies to England, but not to Wales—as far as I know, it does not apply in Scotland either. Hon. Members may have taken part—I certainly did not—in the debate on


women priests in England. There is an established Church in England, so we in Parliament will, from time to time, discuss specifically English matters, such as the established Church. As far as I know, no Welsh Members take part in such debates, vote on them or bother to come in because they are on English matters. England does not need the same degree of protection from abuse by the majority of the minority.
The Government make so much fuss about the same argument in terms of Europe. The Foreign Secretary returns from Europe and makes ringing declarations about subsidiarity and wanting to build in special protection for Britain. He says that we do not want other countries to tell us what to do. We do not want qualified majority voting extended so that we in Britain can be told what to do when we might want to defend our little patch from the abuse by the majority of the minority. That is what Standing Order No. 86 is about.
The two special provisions on Scotland and Wales are saying to the Government and the House that subsidiarity begins at home. It is written into the rules of the House that Wales and Scotland, because they form only 5.5 per cent. and 9.5 per cent. respectively of the UK population, need special protection from abuse by the majority. They cannot be the majority themselves—Wales could never push England around in the House because it is far too small, and that is built into the demography of the United Kingdom.
We in Wales have special protections which, in 1907, were very sensibly built in, and the Government are once again trying to set them aside. That is regardless of the hypocrisy that they manifest when they go to Europe and try to restrict the spread of qualified majority voting because they do not think that this country ought to be pushed around.
Other points have been made in a couple of interventions from hon. Members. The Bill is perhaps even more of a crunch point for our attempt to defend the rights that were built in under Standing Order No.86 than the two previous examples which were quoted. The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill applied directly only to the Cardiff area and it must be said that not everybody in Wales was directly affected by the Welsh Language Bill.
However, the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords] —to give it its proper title—applies in every hole and corner in Wales. There is no part of Wales that will not be directly affected by its provisions. We are all affected by it, but English Members—by and large—are not affected by it.
Therefore, it is absurd that the Government should consider setting aside Standing Order No.86 so that they can throw Welsh Members off the Standing Committee and import English Members who are not affected. That is cheating under the rules of the House, and the Government are moving the goalposts. They are trying to get around the provisions of Standing Order No. 86, which have been there for 87 years.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman says that moving the suspension of Standing Order No. 86 is cheating the House. Has there ever been an occasion when a Labour Government moved the suspension of that Standing Order?

Mr. Morgan: It has not been done on an opposed basis, as the Minister is aware. It is not clear what would have happened if the Opposition at that time had objected, but it has never been done on an opposed basis.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman denying the right of the House to suspend the Standing Order?

Mr. Morgan: Absolutely not. However, the systematic removal of the Standing Order three times in 22 months implies that the Government do not accept its existence, or that they believe that it is only there for their own convenience. That is not the nature of Standing Orders of the House, which exist to protect minorities, the rights of Back Benchers and the ability of Welsh Members to represent Welsh constituents. Those rights have been built in. The Government want to build them back out again, and that is undermining democracy.
The Government are trying to turn the Standing Committee into another quango and pack it with Tory placemen in exactly the same way as they have done with all quangos. It is fair to say that Wales is fed up with quangos and with the three times that the Standing Order has been set aside. The Minister will be aware that quangos —although he is trying to get more people from all over to serve on them—are known as the great little gravy trains of Wales. The right hon. Gentleman wants more people to try to ride on them.
The Government are trying to change the Standing Committees so that they have the same political character as quangos. That simply means that they cannot accept the democratic verdict of the people of Wales in elections. They will be importing people who are not interested in the proceedings.
The top qualification for the English Tories who will be imported is that they will not be able to point out Wales on a map. They will not know the difference between Carmarthen and Caernarfon, and they will not be able to speak as they will be frightened stiff—as the Secretary of State mentioned last night—of Welsh pronunciations. Worst of all, they will think that the name of our national game is "rugger" rather than rugby, and we find that deeply offensive.
The Secretary of State last night kept referring to the "Rhonda valley". He has been Secretary of State for quite a while now, and we would have thought that he would mastered the fact that it is the Rhondda valley and not the "Rhonda valley". There may be some parts of Wokingham where people think that "Rhonda valley" is a product of some 30s slushy Hollywood romance where Rhonda Fleming married Rudy Vallee and had a daughter called "Rhonda valley".
We are talking about Welsh communities and the places that we represent, as distinct from the mythical Wales that the Secretary of State would like to present where, occasionally, the Tories win a seat. Tory Members will serve on the Committee even though they do not agree with unitary local government being introduced in England. They will be imported through the exemption from Standing Order No. 86 and will support hypocritically unitary local government in Wales which they would not support in England. That is another absurdity which will occur if we allow the motion to be passed.
The underlying purpose of the exemption from Standing Order No. 86 and the ability to import carpetbaggers from outside Wales is to defend the ability


of the Government to get through Parliament a measure that, as of this morning, will be subject to follow-up action by the parliamentary boundary commissioner.
The most important thing for the Government in terms of the management of their business is that, once the Bill has had its Second Reading, they will immediately instruct the parliamentary boundary commissioner to review their interim recommendations. We heard last night the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) trying to deny that the intention of bringing the communities of Ewenny, Wick and St. Bride's Major into the Vale of Glamorgan local authority was to assist him in shoring up his majority of 19—which, we understand from the electoral returning officer, was itself artificially imported from Johannesburg.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) was unfair to the hon. Gentleman last night. Normally, it is fair to say that the forensic skills of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan would not extend to his being able to give away ice cream in the middle of the Sahara. My hon. Friend asked the hon. Gentleman to defend the indefensible, which is the bringing in of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick for any sensible local government purpose. The clear underlying purpose is to try to shore up the hon. Gentleman's majority, and that is so open and obvious and so contrary to what the local community wants.

Mr. Win Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Morgan: I will give way to my hon. Friend, who I hope will be as unfair to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan as he was last night.

Mr. Griffiths: I will try my best not to be unfair at this stage. I wish to point out that when the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan made that assertion to the gathered 200 at a meeting, there was a loud burst of laughter.

Mr. Morgan: Following my hon. Friend's inquisition of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan last night, I was thinking that we ought to call in the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. However, there is not a special branch of the NSPCC to defend Government Members when they are in difficulty, as the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan clearly was last night. The Bill will introduce a new word to Welsh political vocabulary—Ewenny-mandering. It is a blatant attempt to shore up the hon. Gentleman and to take votes away from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend.
What are the alternatives? The Opposition tabled the amendment to give the Government some sort of way out. On the previous two occasions, we simply voted against the Standing Order No. 86 set-aside motion.

Mr. Sweeney: I went to some lengths yesterday to repudiate the allegations of gerrymandering which were made by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has just said and, with respect, he cannot have it both ways. He says that the Government are trying to give votes to the Vale of Glamorgan parliamentary constituency, and then says that the Government are trying to take away votes from the hon. Member for Bridgend. Which is it?

Mr. Morgan: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House should not be arguing too much about the Bill. Hon. Members should stick to the subject for tonight's debate, and not last night's debate.

Mr. Morgan: I entirely agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We must stick tightly to the remit of the Standing Order No. 86 set-aside motion. I will say that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan is quoting me accurately. Of course my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend is happy to represent the constituents of Ewenny, Wick and St. Bride's Major. That is the simple fact of it. They do not want to leave and he does not want them to leave.
We are discussing the alternatives to setting aside Standing Order No. 86. We have offered the Government a way out. That way out is the subject of a simply solvable mathematical dispute. In the inconceivable circumstances that the Government were right and 63 members would not give them a majority, they could make it 64. We would not mind. That is one way out. Rather than taking Welsh Members of Parliament off the Standing Committee, on which they have a right, established over 87 years, to serve, the Government could add English Members. That would give the Government a majority. That is not provided for in the last proviso of Standing Order No. 86, but if that is what the Government want, it would be one way of doing it.
If the Government are absolutely insistent on keeping a majority on the Committee, it is still important that we are able to be present when the clause that refers to changes to the local government units in a Member's constituency is discussed. Each Opposition Member will fight like a tigress for her cubs for the right to be there when the matter is dealt with in Committee. We should like to have the right to serve on the Committee—even a large, unwieldy one —simply because each of us wants to be there when our local authority area is discussed.

Mr. Sweeney: If Opposition Members are so keen to fight like tigers, where are they this evening?

Mr. Morgan: I am not sure what sort of count the hon. Gentleman has made of the attendance during the debate last night and tonight. I am grateful for his solicitude for hon. Members. He will have noticed that the Secretary of State was not here for the beginning of the debate, but no doubt he exempts him because, in any case, he represents an English constituency.
The other alternative is simply to let the Committee be constituted as a form of Welsh Grand Committee; in other words, the Government would agree to give up their majority. The Minister of State says that the Government do not want to do that and that such action is almost unprecedented. But it is not unprecedented. The Government have said that they want to tune up the functions of the Scottish Grand Committee and allow it to take the Committee stages of relatively uncontroversial Bills. I accept that the Local Government (Wales) Bill is not uncontroversial, but, given the difficulties posed to the Government by the way in which Standing Order No. 86 is written, the Minister of State should at least have had the courtesy to the House of raising the hypothesis of constituting the Committee as a Welsh Grand Committee


and then knocking it down. He should have given the Government's reasons for not being willing to accept the loss of majority.
All that the Minister said was that such a move was unprecedented. We know that that is not true because in their "taking stock" exercise the Government want to apply the principle to the Scottish Grand Committee. It is clear that the Government would lose a few votes in the Committee stage on the Bill. They would lose perhaps three or four votes. They would certainly lose the votes on a Welsh assembly. One or two of the boundary votes, such as the vote on Montgomery, would be lost in Committee. The Government could reverse them on Report. If they are interested in democracy, that is always a possibility. It is not a problem. The problem is that they are not interested in democracy. They are interested only in steamrollering. The Government must face that problem in the higher court of the views of the Welsh people, as expressed in past elections and undoubtedly in the next elections.
The Government have to face the fact that ever since the secret ballot was introduced they have not won a majority of votes in Wales. Yet we do not want them to come up with ideas to set aside the secret ballot in Welsh elections because they do not like the results. We cannot accept any diminution of the democratic rights of people in Wales.

Sir Wyn Roberts: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his proposals in the amendment for a Committee of 63 or 64 with the requirement of Standing Order No. 86 that the Committee of Selection shall nominate no fewer than 16 and no more than 50 Members to serve on each Standing Committee?

Mr. Morgan: That is clearly overridden by the third proviso with reference to Scottish and Welsh legislation. Scottish and Welsh legislation is exempt from that part of Standing Order No. 86. One can read it 20 times or once. It is plain as a pikestaff. Scottish and Welsh legislation is exempt from that provision. What else can the provision that all Welsh Members of Parliament shall be on the Committee mean? It is clearly an instruction to the authorities of ' the House which is superior to the instructions on the composition of Committees and the maximum of 50 and minimum of 16. That is the only possible construction that the English language can permit anyone with common sense to put on the words of Standing Order No. 86.
The problem with the Minister of State is not his understanding of Standing Order No. 86 and what the English language plainly means. The problem is that he does not like what it means and is therefore trying to wriggle out of the consequences for the Government. If they accepted the consequences, they would have to show a little give and take, a little chwarae teg and a little flexibility in coming to meet us half way, representing as we do more than five out of six of the constituencies of Wales.
Those are the three alternatives that the Government could have adopted instead of the one that they have adopted on three successive occasions and which has caused them to stand condemned before the bar of Welsh public opinion. The Government's action is application of the steamroller, the packing of the Standing Committee and the acid test of whether they are interested in democracy.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has listed all the reasonable options. If the Government are not willing to budge on this issue, does he think that they would go for even the most modest option and take clause 1 and schedule I in a Committee of the whole House? That would at least allow every Welsh Member to take part in the debate. That is a practical proposition. I wonder whether my hon. Friend could tempt the Secretary of State to comment on that option?

Mr. Morgan: That is yet another example of the flexibility with which, I think that it is fair to say, Opposition Members are willing to approach the matter. We are trying to tempt the Government into using some legislative method other than the steamroller across Welsh public opinion. The only language that we have heard from the Government so far is packing the Standing Committee with Tory placemen who are ignorant of Wales and proud of that ignorance. The way we are going, Wales will soon be renamed as Quangostan.
The Government are attempting to take Wales back to the evil days before secret ballots and before elected local government was introduced in 1884. Before that, everything was arranged cosily between the squire, the justices of the peace, the poor law guardians and the school boards, all of whom were relatives of the squire in any case. We reject that vision of disappearing democracy and circumscribed accountability. We want to develop democracy in Wales and take government institutions closer to the people. That is why we shall ask all our colleagues to support us in the Lobby tonight in the vote on the amendment and, if the amendment is defeated, the vote on the main motion.

Mr. Rod Richards: We see now why the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) aggregated a massive sum of 40 votes out of 270 when he stood for the shadow Cabinet.
The thrust of the argument from Opposition Members is that they wish to represent and speak for their constituencies in the Standing Committee. I find that interesting. I propose to develop their argument for a few moments. I have just come out of the Standing Committee that is considering the Coal Industry Bill. I noticed that the sole representative on the Opposition Benches from the south Wales coalfield was the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). That surprised me because, coming from south Wales, I am fully aware that in a bygone era the coalfield fuelled an empire. Its socialism was championed by the likes of Aneurin Bevan and Jim Griffiths. So I wondered why the hon. Member for Neath was the sole representative from the south Wales coalfield.
When I asked the hon. Member for Neath why he was the only south Wales Member on that Committee—I am coming to the key point, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the reason that I was given was that other hon. Members who represent the south Wales coalfield were Opposition spokesmen. They had other duties and could not be selected for that Standing Committee.
I should like to develop the argument by assessing how many Opposition Members would be eligible to serve on the Standing Committee. I shall start with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) who is the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely we must concentrate on the Standing Order and not have another repeat of a psychotic litany of hatred from the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is quite aware of that.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) is suggesting that some of my hon. Friends would not be eligible to sit on a Standing Committee. Surely the only question that arises about eligibility is whether hon. Members are elected. As we are all elected, by definition we all must be eligible. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is out of order in suggesting that we are ineligible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will decide who is out of order, and so far the hon. Gentleman is quite in order.

Mr. Richards: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for clarifying that matter for Opposition Members.

Mr. Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman seeks to mislead the House in relation to the Coal Industry Bill. My reply is quite specific. Not only are other valley Members Front-Bench spokesmen for the Labour party but they are on Select Committees. That is why it was difficult, if not impossible, for them to be members of the Committee examining the Coal Industry Bill. The hon. Gentleman should at least repeat my remark in its full context and give the full explanation rather than mislead the House as he does on every occasion.

Mr. Richards: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that. Now that he has drawn it to my attention I hope to add to the list of Opposition Members who are spokesmen for their party.
As I have said, the hon. Member for Rhondda is the Labour party spokesman on foreign affairs. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) is a spokesman on national heritage and the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is a spokesman for education. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) is the Opposition's legal adviser, and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is a spokesman, as is the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells).

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman points to the wealth of talent on the Labour Benches by mentioning those who speak on England and Wales issues. It is nice of him to advertise that fact to the House, but surely he accepts that that would not prevent any one of us whom he has just named—and he mentioned me—from being a member of the Committee within the rules of the House.

Mr. Richards: Perhaps I could continue, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) is the Opposition spokesman on office accommodation. I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) on his recent appointment as Opposition spokesman on agriculture. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) for his intervention because it brings me to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who is the Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) is Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, and the right hon.

Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is a noted member of the Public Accounts Committee. We must not forget the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) who has now found his niche as a disc jockey.
I have listed some 12 Opposition Members who, according to the reason that I was given in the Committee examining the Coal Industry Bill, might not be eligible or might not wish to be eligible for the Standing Committee to champion the cause of their constituencies. I looked to see how much interest Opposition Members have shown in local government affairs since the last general election. There are interesting data. I obtained from the Library the aggregate number of questions on local government from the general election last year until 9 February this year.
Top of the list is the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. In joint second place are the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and, surprise, surprise, myself. Other hon. Members have asked five to eight questions, but the thrust of the Opposition's argument is that they wish to champion the cause of their constituencies in the Standing Committee. Let us look at a question asked by the hon. Member for Bridgend in order to champion his constituency. On 29 April last year, the hon. Gentleman asked the following question [Interruption.] This is pertinent, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's remarks have nothing to do with the debate on Standing Order No.86. He is engaging in his favourite pastime of launching personal, vindictive attacks on Opposition Members. I contend that his remarks are quite out of order and have nothing to do with the amendment or the motion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already said in reply to other interventions that, so far, the hon. Gentleman is quite in order.

Mr. Richards: Let us get back to the question by the hon. Member for Bridgend. Bearing in mind that he wants to champion his constituency, he asked:
what are the distances between (a) Wick, (b) St. Bride's Major, (c) Ewenny and (d) Coychurch and (e) Bridgend".—[Official Report, 29 April 1993; Vol.223, c. 517.]
As the hon. Gentleman is the Member for Bridgend, I should have thought that he would know how far local villages are from his constituency.

Mr. Win Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman were able to read Hansard properly he would know that my question was about distances from those communities to Bridgend and was in the context of the distance from Barry. The purpose was to show how much closer they are to Bridgend than to Barry. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would give us the full story and not a twisted half story.

Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman should be grateful to me for allowing him the opportunity to explain himself.
Bearing in mind that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) wishes to champion the cause of his constituency in the Standing Committee, he asked the Secretary of State:
what information he has received on the resolution passed at the European Assembly of the Regions bureau meeting in Hungary on 30 April regarding his White Paper,'Local Government in Wales'"—[Official Report, 18 May 1993; Vol.225, c.135.]
Those are the sort of questions that Opposition Members have been asking. Sadly for them, most of them have not shown any interest whatever in local government in Wales


since April last year. Since then, six of them have asked only one question on local government in Wales. Five of my hon. Friends from England have also asked one question each, almost as many as the number asked by Opposition Members. Three Welsh Opposition Members have asked no questions at all about local government in Wales.
Those are the people who tell us that they want to be on the Standing Committee to champion the cause of their constituencies.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: rose—

Mr. Richards: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) because he is one of those who have not asked a question on local government since April 1992.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: How many questions in total on local government in Wales have the 10 Conservative Members who are to be brought in from England to sit on this Committee tabled since the last election?

Mr. Richards: I am not familiar with who will be on the Standing Committee, but by the time I come to the end of my speech I shall have shown that my hon. Friends from England will be just as welcome on that Committee as Opposition Members because they have taken as much interest in local government in Wales as Opposition Members.
I shall move on to see how many speeches Opposition Members have made on local government reform. I appreciate that Opposition Members will argue that they cannot all speak in the debates as they serve on the Welsh Grand Committee and so on. I shall aggregate them to see how many there are. The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) is near the top of the list as is the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes). To try to demonstrate interest in Welsh local government I said to myself, "What would be reasonable for Welsh Members to ask to show an interest in local government since the general election? Should it be one question or two, one debate or two?" I decided that the criteria would be maybe one question, maybe two; maybe one debate, maybe two. If they scored three—either two questions and one debate or vice versa —that would be reasonable.
I went through the list of 15 people that I had left after chucking out the first 12. I found that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) scored one question but no debates, so he is out. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) scored one question and one debate, so he is out. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) scored one question and no debates, so he is out. The hon. Member for Neath scored one question and one debate; goodbye to him. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) scored one question and one debate. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West scored no questions and no debates; the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) scored no questions and no debates and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) scored no questions and no debates.
By the time I had taken out those who failed to score on that simple table, the only ones left were the hon. Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), for Cardiff, West, for Caerphilly. for Alyn and Deeside, for Delyn and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). In my view,

only six Labour Members would be eligible to sit on the Standing Committee—they would be equal in number to the Conservative Members.

Mr. David Hanson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am interested in what he has said and I am pleased to be one of the six that he has mentioned. I sat through the Committee considering the Welsh Language Bill with the hon. Gentleman and I cannot recall a single word uttered by a single Conservative Member representing an English seat. Does that affect his list? Do the same criteria apply to every other issue in which hon. Members take part? What are needed are their votes; not their contributions or ideas, but solely their votes.

Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Cranbourne (Mr. Coe) spoke very well on that Bill. I recall the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) complimenting my hon. Friend on his speech in the House.
We should take the six hon. Members who passed the test and allow the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central to join them for organisational reasons, along with obviously the four members of Plaid Cymru and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for paying me the compliment of allowing me to sit on the Committee and for acknowledging me for my organisational skills, if nothing else. The hon. Gentleman is making the point that those who table insufficient questions to satisfy his idea of what is eligible should not be able to sit on Committee because they have not shown sufficient interest in local government in Wales. Does not my service for six years as a councillor in Cardiff entitle me to some acceptance for my knowledge of local government in Wales? Does not the fact that I was chairman of economic development in Cardiff four years entitle me to recognition of some knowledge of local government in Wales? How does that stand with the English Members to be parachuted in who know nothing about local government in Wales?

Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman misses the point completely. Opposition Members are burning to get into the Standing Committee to represent their constituents, but they have been burning so much that they have not shown it since the general election.

Mr. Sweeney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that the fact that 15 Opposition Members representing Wales are missing from the Chamber at this very moment demonstrates the fierce enthusiasm of Opposition Members to participate in the Committee?

Mr. Richards: I have now aggregated 12 Opposition Members who by certain criteria would be eligible, but even by the criteria that hon. Member for Cardiff, Central has set before me, at least seven of my hon. Friends have asked as many questions about Welsh local government as have Opposition Members. If we were to include those seven Conservative Members, we would have 13 on the Committee and the Opposition would have 12, but I reflect on what my right hon. Friend said in that we must have a minimum of 16.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Bearing in mind the criteria adopted by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr.


Jones) that six years service in local government in Wales is a demonstrable criterion for being a member of the Committee, in those circumstances, would not my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) qualify as a member of the Committee as he was a distinguished member of West Glamorgan county council?

Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend was a distinguished member of local authorities in Wales. However, he has other duties.

Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Richards: The truth about the Opposition, the reason why Opposition Members are dying to get on to the Committee to champion the cause of their constituencies is that they do not have confidence in the hon. Member for Caerphilly to represent their interests on that Standing Committee. He could not even secure half their votes in the election for the shadow Cabinet. That is the truth, that is the sham, that is the agenda of the Opposition. They are exposed for the sham that they are.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) calling for the Committee to have 63 members. Despite the arithmetic of the Minister, that number would still give the Government a majority.
I listened with some interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards).

Mr. Flynn: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but he will recall that many hon. Members were criticised for not asking enough questions. It is a rare treat for me or for my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) to be criticised for not asking enough parliamentary questions, when we have asked more parliamentary questions in several Sessions than not only any Welsh Member but any hon. Member. Does he not realise that we ask questions to seek information and the fact that some of us have asked very few questions demonstrates that we already have a wealth of information and knowledge?

Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment.
There is an enormous amount of experience of local government among Opposition Members. I am quite embarrassed at just how many of my colleagues have been in local government.
As regards the membership of the Committee, earlier this evening I had a word with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) to press my claim to be on the Committee. He pointed out his embarrassment about my part of the world. I defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), who feels that, in view of his county council experience, he should have first claim to represent Dyfed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) is also keen to be on the Committee, and so am I.
We all have legitimate territorial claims. Carmarthen has its own interest as capital of Dyfed and it is likely to lose many jobs in the reorganisation. Llanelli has a different industrial character and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli wants to reflect that in the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, with his recent

and detailed experience and responsibilities on Dyfed county council, also has a claim. The embarrassment of riches is among those on the Opposition Benches, and I may lose my place on the Committee when I really want to be there. I shall not go into detail, but there is a real problem in that we have dozens of people who are very keen to be on the Committee.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I am one of those who would like to be on the Committee. I have a specific problem in my constituency in that the town of Llangollen should be included in the unitary authority of Wrexham and I shall not be able to make that point in Committee. I should also like to make another point which my hon. Friend might like to convey to the Government statisticians. The Committee considering the Welsh Language Bill, which was set up in a similar way to this, had nine English Members who were eligible to speak. Only one of them spoke and his contribution consisted of only 41 words, which shows just how ridiculous it is to have English Members drafted in on Welsh legislation.

Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. We have very much in mind his distinguished background on Clwyd county council before he became a Member of Parliament. What he says about the participation of Conservative Members during the Committee stage of every Bill is true. They sit there simply for the votes, contributing nothing to the debate, and I fear that that will be the case again on this Bill.
I was present for the opening and closing speeches of yesterday's six-hour debate on the Bill and I was astounded that the first Back-Bench Member to be called was the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason). I could not put a name to the hon. Gentleman. I have never heard him speak in the House before and certainly not on Welsh affairs.
Later in the evening we had a contribution from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). What is his experience of local authorities? His main credential is that he knows well the right-to-buy policy—the right for someone else to buy so that he can buy back at a knock-down price. That is no recommendation to be on the Committee.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) excluded Welsh Members one by one, but the converse of what he said is true. Of the 15 Conservative Members that the Government intend to place on the Committee, 10 come from outside Wales and know nothing about local government in Wales and our problems.

Mr. Hain: While my hon. Friend is drawing attention to those facts, will he also remind the House that on Second Reading last night, of the Conservative Members who voted against the united position of the opposing parties in Wales 30 are Conservative Members who wish to defy the Government on English local government reform? They will try to overturn the Government because they want to protect the old counties. I should like to know whether any of those hon. Members are likely to find themselves on the Committee considering Welsh reorganisation. They are happy to go through the Lobby for the Government on the Floor of the House, but I bet that the Government will not dare to put them on the Committee. They will put on that Committee other toadies who will toe their line.

Mr. Williams: I do not have my hon. Friend's residual faith in the Government. Despite their hypocrisy, the Government may well put them on the Committee.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I want to return to the hon. Gentleman's uncharacteristically churlish remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) whom he suggested knows little about local government in Wales. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not aware that in fact my hon. Friend is a former leader of the Association of District Councils. He has wide experience and is widely respected. He made a thoughtful, analytical speech which was well received, even by Opposition Members.

Mr. Williams: I listened intently to his speech. It was that of someone with a great deal of experience in local government but with no direct experience of Wales.

Mr. Morgan: He did not even mention Wales.

Mr. Williams: His experience could have been in the United States or in any part of any country. His speech was that of an academic. It was of interest, obviously, but only in the sense that a speech made by any professor of local government or any chair of any local authority association in Europe would be. In contrast, each of the 38 Members who represents Wales has, by definition, a direct territorial interest in being on the Committee.
In preparing my speech for this debate I was reminded of some of the comments made by the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), in the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff a year ago. In his introductory remarks he talked about the role of that Welsh Grand Committee and envisaged a larger role for it in Welsh affairs. Implicit in his remarks was the fact that that Committee was the proper forum for legislation concerning only Wales, such as last year's Welsh Language Bill and now the Local Government (Wales) Bill.
Our main criticism of the Bill is that no assembly is proposed. There is to be no accountable, elected, democratic regional tier of government. Support for that assembly is growing all the time. It reached a ratio of 2:1 in an opinion poll a week ago. Had the Labour party won the last election we might already have introduced legislation for that assembly. In our programme we had in mind setting up the assembly first and giving it the job of reorganising Welsh local government so that only Welsh people would be in charge of our reorganisation. That makes the point that only people with experience of, and who live in, Wales should be involved in such legislation because they know what is best for Wales.
Under the Government's proposal, the Committee will have 15 Conservative Members and 13 from Opposition parties. I understand, unofficially, that the Committee will have 11 Labour Members. I have already referred to the fact that I want to be on the Committee, as do my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and, very properly, my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, but there is not room for all of us.
The Bill proposes to re-establish Carmarthenshire as a unitary authority. I am happy with that. It is the right unit in terms of size and history. It is an identifiable unit. It is viable and it is the fourth largest in Wales. Even though there are differences between Carmarthen and Llanelli—Llanelli has an industrial tradition while Carmarthen is

more rural—there is a gradation across the Gwendraeth and Amman valleys between them. Llanelli borough council and the town in particular have grave reservations, misgivings—opposition even—to Carmarthenshire. There is a strong body of feeling in Llanelli that it should have its own unitary authority. I should like to be a member of the Committee with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli so that he can present some of those points and I can respond to them, and perhaps reassure my right hon. Friend and his constituents that their doubts can be ameliorated.
Another point that I would wish to make as a member of the Committee concerns the number of councillors who will be serving on the unitary authorities throughout Wales. There is to be a cut from 2,000 councillors on the district and county councils to 1,250. We see a growth in quangos, but a cut in a number of elected councils. Specifically, in Carmarthenshire, we will have 82 where there are now 140. I am concerned because a recent Welsh Office document showed that, of those 82, 33 are allocated to Llanelli, 29 to Carmarthen and 20 to Dinefwr. They have not been allocated in accordance with the electorates. I cannot understand why the average electorate per councillor in Carmarthen will be 1,525, in Dinefwr will be 1,550 and in Llanelli will be 1,820. Members of Llanelli borough council have already made their feelings known about being denied three councillors. They have a legitimate grievance there. I should like to like to elaborate and develop that point in the Committee.
The Secretary of State said yesterday that he had an open mind about area committees for some parts of Wales, but that the unitary authority would devolve part of its powers in the Powys pudding model to local area committees. It is clear from questions to the Secretary of State from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that he does not have a clear mind about what he means by the area committees. It struck me from his phraseology and from the way that he presented his argument yesterday that there was a do-it-yourself devolution within each unitary authority, and that could lead to chaos.
This afternoon, I was reading some of the comments made last night by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. He put it very well when he talked about the powers of community councils, town councils and now the odd idea of area committees. In a sense, in town councils such as Llanelli borough council, Carmarthen community council and all the other town councils throughout Wales, one has a ready-made structure of area committees. I should like to be on the Committee to hear some of the detailed arguments and what the Secretary of State has in mind or what he is hoping will turn up in the arguments on area committees.
My understanding is that there is a danger that the Bill could result in great erosion of the functions of local government. We know that the Government do not believe in local government and want to reduce it to enabling bodies. We in the Opposition parties believe passionately —I know that Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats do, as well as the Labour party—in local government. We believe that as many powers that can be devolved to local government should be.
Finally, I mention the constituency element in my disappointment that all Welsh Members cannot serve on the Standing Committee. Carmarthen is an old, historical


town. Because it is on the estuary of the largest river in Wales, it has its own unique geographical importance. It is no surprise then that it is the capital of Dyfed. Dyfed is too large. I support the idea of going back to Cardiganshire, Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire, but it is a fact of life that many of the jobs associated with Dyfed county council —for example, the headquarters for all its main services —are in Carmarthen and there will be quite a substantial job loss for Carmarthen and neighbouring areas as a result of the Bill.
I am disappointed that, because all Welsh Members cannot be on the Standing Committee, I shall not be able properly to represent my constituents. It is sad for democracy, for the people of Wales and for our constituents that the Government have chosen, through the motion, to abandon Standing Order No. 86. It would have been much more proper if we had had a Committee of those 63 Members so that all my colleagues representing Welsh constituencies would have had a platform to put their views.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: It seems to me that the debate turns substantially on our interpretation of Standing Order No. 86. I heard the intervention made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister. He said that Standing Order No. 86 sets out the number of people who can serve on Standing Committees. But we also have the proviso in relation to Welsh Members. Thereafter, it is an argument of semantics. Clearly, we are involved in an issue of balance; the balance being that the Opposition think it appropriate and right that we should aim to take the Bill into a Standing Committee that will be composed of 63 or 64 members.
We shall put aside the "Aberpergau" arithmetic of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) for these purposes, but he did at least concede that perhaps he would have to move the numbers up from 63 to 64 to ensure a Government majority. Be that as it may, he is talking about having a Committee of that size. That is the fundamental aspect of the matter, because it surely must be recognised, even as the Standing Order itself recognises, that the Standing Committee must reflect the balance of the House. Therefore, there must clearly be a majority for the governing party.
Let me deal with some of the things that we have heard during the debate. Sadly, we have heard yet again the hostility towards hon. Members representing English constituencies that seems to pervade so many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. As one who recognises the great worth to Wales of being an integral part of the United Kingdom, I am greatly saddened to hear that misplaced hostility so often from Welsh Members and, may I say remarkably, less often from the nationalist Members than from Labour Members. We have heard it not only in relation to the debate on local government reorganisation but, sadly, on many occasions. For example when any hon. Member representing an English constituency rises in his place in Welsh Question Time, we hear complaints to the Speaker about such Members making any contribution at all.
I make it clear that, as a Member representing a part of Wales, which is within the United Kingdom, I very much value the interest in Welsh issues that is shown by English Members. I recognise the fact that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) welcomed such interest. I remember his remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), who spoke in the debate on the Welsh Language Bill. He spoke with an independence of spirit about the situation in Cornwall and how he equated that situation with Wales, and gave us some caveats about the situation in Cornwall reflected on the situation in Wales. Therefore, the thrust of what I say is that contributions can be made by English Members on issues that apply to Wales.

Mr. Wigley: What the hon. Gentleman has just said encapsulates the difficulty that we have with the Standing Committee, bearing in mind what happened with the Welsh Language Bill. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) made a valuable contribution to the Second Reading debate. But the reality in Committee was that, with the exception of one hon. Member who opened his mouth once, none of the Members from English constituencies made any contribution whatever. That is why we feel that whereas there are Members from Wales who can make a contribution and are being denied the opportunity to do so, hon. Members representing English constituencies are put on just for party political reasons and do not have any contribution to make.

Mr. Evans: That may well be a reflection on the quality of the amendments that were being proposed by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. Certainly, an interest in those issues and a perception of them was clearly shown in the example that I gave and in the contributions made only yesterday by my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Flynn: Oh, God!

Mr. Evans: One of the more disreputable contributions was made by the hon. Member for Newport, East—

Mr. Flynn: West.

Mr. Evans: If I may finish this point, I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton made an important point, which those of us who represent rural constituencies in Wales recognised had a reflection in his constituency. The deliberate attempts that were made by the hon. Member for Newport, East—

Mr. Roy Hughes: West.

Mr. Evans: Newport, West. I apologise unreservedly to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes). The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) endeavoured to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton from making that important contribution, which we in rural Wales very much valued. That was a travesty of democracy. If the hon. Member for Newport, West wishes to intervene, I am happy to give way to him.

Mr. Flynn: The alleged attempt to stop that hon. Member from speaking was a brief, one-sentence intervention, which he allowed me, and in which I invited him to tell us about his personal experience of buying council houses.
Accusations have been made about the conduct of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), which he has failed to answer before the House in spite of invitations to do so. I think that the matter concerns all hon. Members: when such accusations are made, hon. Members should be prepared to answer them in the House.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman's disadvantage lies in the fact that I was present for yesterday's debate, and heard both his intervention and his subsequent sedentary remarks. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) had to plead for a hearing for my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, which is a reflection on the conduct of the hon. Member for Newport, West.
All those examples show that English Members can make worthwhile and important contributions, drawn from their experience, which are relevant to us in Wales. It is nonsense to pretend that those contributions are in some way less valuable because they come from English Members.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Are not Opposition Members being disingenuous? I remember serving on Standing Committees when Labour was in office; I assure my hon. Friend that Labour Members were silent then. Silence is golden as far as Government Whips are concerned.

Mr. Evans: I do not know whether this is the right occasion for me to make a confession to my right hon. Friend, but my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) and I have just finished serving on the Standing Committee considering the Criminal Justice Bill, where we broke substantially with precedent by speaking for more than half the allotted time. No doubt a penance awaits us at the hands of the Whips.
The protestations that we have heard from Opposition Members sit ill with their own conduct during the debate. I note that at least 10 Labour Members have not been present; yet the thrust of the Opposition's case is that it is a constitutional outrage that they are not to be given seats on the Standing Committee.
That point also relates to the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Minister. It cannot be said that the suspension of the relevant aspect of Standing Order No 86 has only ever been suggested by Conservative Governments; it has previously been suggested by Labour.

Mr. Morgan: Well, at least it was not opposed.

Mr. Evans: I heard that excuse from a sedentary position. As far as I recall from my reading of the events involved, the Standing Order was revoked on that occasion because a number of Labour Members had Front-Bench responsibilities elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) drew strongly on that point, and the protestations that we heard from Labour Members during his speech need to be seen in the context of the submission of the Labour party, when in government, that the Standing Order should be set aside.
Let me say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that, for the reasons that I have given, this is always a question of balance. It would clearly be difficult, in the circumstances, to proceed with a Committee composed of more than 60 members. I urge my right hon. Friend to proceed with the course on which he is embarked: many of the protestations that we have heard from Opposition Members are plainly ill founded.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I do not wish to speak of outrage or gerrymandering; I want to talk about the Standing Order, and to raise a number of what I hope will be seen as serious issues.
I do not even want to criticise English Members who may contribute to our deliberations on the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) that two of them—the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason)—made valuable contributions last night, with which I agreed wholeheartedly. Both showed ample qualifications—I use the word advisedly—for service on the Standing Committee. I hope that the Government will recognise that both those qualifications and their interest in the matter should lead to their selection—subject, of course, to the views of the Committee of Selection—rather than the introduction of Members who would sit there silently, acting as lobby fodder. I am sure that it would be valuable for the Committee to hear more contributions from the hon. Members for Bromsgrove and for Rutland and Melton, especially on the subject of the potential for success of small rural local authorities.
Why do we have Standing Order No 86? Let me say, with great respect, that in opening the debate the Minister of State displayed a lack of understanding of the Standing Order. To be fair, and to issue a short plea in mitigation for the right hon. Gentleman, I suspect that he has not read the entire Standing Order for about 25 years—I think I see him nodding gently in assent—and certainly not in the past 25 hours, since his return from his pleasant trip to Catalonia.
In an intervention, I asked the Minister why he thought Standing Order No 86 had been introduced. I think that, in the context of this debate, the House is entitled to a head-on, direct answer to that question in the winding-up speech. Why was the Standing Order introduced, and why did it make special provision for Wales—special provision with which I shall deal in a moment?
It is my view, at least, that the Standing Order was introduced because it was thought desirable, in debates on Bills relating exclusively to Wales, for all Welsh Members to express their views in detailed consideration of such Bills—perhaps because of the fervour with which, for centuries, they have expressed such views.
Let me draw attention specifically to paragraph (2)(ii) of the Standing Order. May I ask whichever Minister winds up the debate to reconsider a statement made by the Minister of State in his opening speech? He seemed to be saying that he understood it to be a basic requirement that there should be not more than 50 and not fewer than 16 Members on a Standing Committee. Perhaps he should take advice. If he rereads the Standing Order, he will realise that the words "Provided that", just before paragraph (2)(i), are extremely important, and have an overriding effect.
Surely the basic requirement of the Standing Order, in regard to Wales, is that all Welsh Members should serve on a Standing Committee considering a public Bill—and this is a public Bill—relating exclusively to Wales. It is interesting to note that a specific distinction is drawn between Wales and Scotland. In relation to Wales, the requirement is for "all Members" to serve; in relation to Scotland, it is for
not fewer than sixteen Members representing Scottish constituencies.


Perhaps the Minister of State will explain why he thinks that distinction was drawn. There must be a rationale—and I can think of no better rationale than that it was thought right in 1907, when the Standing Order was introduced, for all Welsh Members to have their voices heard in Standing Committees. If the Government believe, or if any previous Government believed—although our memories of other Governments are now fading—that Standing Order No. 86 as it relates to Wales should be brushed aside and should cease to be one of the Standing Orders of the House, they should have said so. It now seems to have become the rule that Standing Order No. 86 is not to apply to exclusively Welsh legislation. If that is so, what the Government are doing smacks of serious intellectual dishonesty.
Let us hear what the Government have to say. Do they foresee an occasion in the future when the second proviso of Standing Order No. 86 will apply? If so, we may at least have an example of an issue in the distant future when all Welsh Members will sit on a Standing Committee discussing Welsh legislation. If not, let the Government bring to the House a proper motion setting out their real policy, which is to bring an end to the second proviso of Standing Order No. 86.

Mr. Wigley: Is not this the answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question: the Government will never allow the provisions of the Standing Order to be used while they are in office, but they will not do away with them because they will want to use them when they are in opposition?

Mr. Carlile: That may be right; but, if it is, the Government should tell us so to enable the people of Wales to judge whether this case has any merit.
The Minister should tell us what the Government regard as appropriate qualifications for the hon. Members nominated to the Committee. I draw special attention to Standing Order No. 86(2), which states that, in
nominating such Members the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the qualifications of those Members nominated and to the composition of the House".
I take the Minister's point that the Government will want a majority on a legislative Committee, but there are various ways of ensuring that that happens: there may be a Committee of 63 Members, or it can be achieved by debating part of the Bill in a Committee of the whole House. That would present no problems and there are plenty of precedents for it. It could easily be done and would ensure that everyone who wished to have his say could do so.
If that is not to be the case, and so that we can judge whether to vote with or against the Government tonight, the Minister should tell us what he regards as appropriate qualifications to press on the Committee of Selection and which might lead to the selection of an English or Scottish Member to serve on the Committee—presuming, of course, that the Government can find a Scottish Conservative Member.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that an ability to remain silent in the heat of battle—to hold a gun but not to fire it—is not a qualification for someone wishing to be a member of the Standing Committee, although I suspect that the real intention is that there should be not only

soldiers standing stock still but also a few unloaded guns sitting on the Government Back Benches in that Committee.

Sir Wyn Roberts: rose—

Mr. Carlile: Perhaps the Minister is about to answer all my questions.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. and learned Gentleman was kind enough to give us his speculative views on the what the thinking was when Standing Order No. 86 was drawn up in 1907. His interpretation is as plausible as any. I note, however, that the one part of the Standing Order to which he has not referred as much as he referred to the other parts is the reference to the requirement of the Committee of Selection to have regard to
the composition of the House".
He mentioned it, but he did not expand on it. Surely he knows what it means.

Mr. Carlile: With respect, while I was speaking the Minister must have been remembering the delicious paella that he was eating in Catalonia 36 hours ago. I dealt with that very point, but I shall remind him—[Interruption.] Perhaps there was some flamenco, too—who knows? I said that I recognised the fact that the Government would want their majority and that there were ways of ensuring that. One solution might be a Committee of 63 Members, as proposed in the amendment, and another might be to discuss part of the Bill on the Floor of the House. Nothing could better reflect the composition of the House than debating part of the Bill—for example, clause 1 and schedule 1—in a Committee of the whole House.
I was asking the Minister to be a little more specific and I am glad that I am able to repeat what I said in order to penetrate the paella—perhaps there was some flamenco while he was eating the paella and that made his attention wander.
What are the qualifications to be? Will one qualification be a familiarity with a rural area or rural counties? If so, that will be very welcome. Will another qualification be having spoken on Second Reading, which is the usual qualification for being selected to sit on a Standing Committee? If so, that, too, will be welcome. Or will someone be chosen who has been told that he has at least one hand on the greasy pole to ministerial office which might lead eventually to him as an English Member being appointed as Secretary of State for Wales? We should like answers to those questions, and I hope that we shall be given them.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: The House has the right to suspend Standing Orders, and it is right to do so on this occasion.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) cast a slur on people who play rugger. It was no doubt directed at those who live on this side of the border. As an Irishman who was brought up in Rugby and who was taught to play rugger, I defend the right to refer to the game of rugger. I believe that it enriches our experience as Members of Parliament for Welsh constituencies to hear speeches from colleagues across the border.
Between February and October 1974, hon. Members who are far more experienced than I will recall that Britain had the misfortune to be governed by a minority Labour


Government with the help of some Labour supporters who, in those days, described themselves as Liberals. They implemented legislation affecting England. The Government were a minority Government even in the United Kingdom as a whole and were certainly in a minority in England and yet, under the first-past-the-post system that we rightly retain, the Government doubtless ensured that they controlled the Committees of the House. It was not regarded as undemocratic by the House or, presumably, by the electorate of England who gave Labour a working majority in October 1974.
The Government have a mandate to introduce this legislation—[Interruption.] They have a mandate in Parliament to introduce it, but they could not do so effectively without having a majority on the Committee. Opposition Members are too quick to impugn the suitability of hon. Members from this side of the border to serve on the Committee. I do not know who will serve on it, but I have no doubt that many of them will have local government experience. In my previous incarnation as an Irishman living in England, as distinct from an Irishman living in Wales, I was privileged to serve as a councillor at district and county council level for 14 years.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I heard the hon. Gentleman today and yesterday speaking at length about Wick, St. Bride's Major and Ewenny. I am from north Wales—I am none the worse for that—but may I ask how many hon. Members who represent English constituencies know anything about Wick, St. Bride's Major and Ewenny?

Mr. Sweeney: That is a question for which I am unable to give a precise, definitive answer, not having canvassed all my colleagues on the subject. I suspect that few hon. Members on either side of the House, whether they be hon. Members representing constituencies in Wales, Northern ireland, Scotland or England, will have the same detailed knowledge of those areas as does the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) or myself. That is not to say that we are justified in having each and every Member of Parliament who happens to serve a Welsh constituency on the Committee: That would make the Committee unwieldy in the extreme.
To return to the point that I was making, many English hon. Members will have the experience similar to mine of serving in local government and, therefore, they will be well qualified to take part in deliberations on the form of local government, especially as the present form of local government in Wales is precisely the same—except that, of course, in Wales we have community councils instead of parish councils—as that which prevails in England.

Mr. Michael: As the hon. Gentleman is commenting on the experience of Conservative Members, why is that experience never reflected in any feeling of affection and respect for local government?

Mr. Sweeney: I strongly repudiate that and regard it as a slur on the many Conservatives in England and Wales who devote considerable time and energies to providing effective local government and to providing a level of service at a lower cost to council tax payers than is provided in Labour-controlled local authorities.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West said that the Labour Government suspended Standing Orders only when that was not opposed. With respect to Opposition Members, the

answer on this occasion is that they should not oppose the motion. Opposition Members should realise when they are beaten. The reality is that all Governments, of whatever colour, need a majority to ensure the passage of proposed legislation which is included in their manifestos. I urge the House to support my right hon. Friend on his excellent motion.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I strongly oppose the Government's motion. There are overwhelming reasons why it should be rejected and alternatives are available, including the amendment tabled by the Labour party, which would be much more acceptable for Wales.
I speak as one who served for a couple of years as a councillor on the old Merthyr Tydfil county borough council. May I say in passing that I was delighted to hear yesterday that Merthyr Tydfil is coming back into existence in its own right. That is one of the few aspects in the Bill which give great pleasure.
The Bill is a constitutional one and, as such, it should be debated entirely on the Floor of the House, or, at least, the many parts that have far-reaching implications should be considered in that manner. For example, in the other place, there was a debate on having an all-Wales elected tier of government as part of the Bill. If that is not a constitutional proposition, I do not know what is. As happened in the 1970s, when the then Conservative Opposition insisted that such matters be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House, surely today's provisions should also be dealt with on the Floor of the House. Not to do so is not only a disservice to Wales, but it does not follow patterns that have been established by precedent in the House. I am surprised that the Government have not recognised that.
As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, some of the detailed work could be considered in a Standing Committee and that we could have a split—the sort of motion that only a Minister bringing the Bill before the House has the right to put to the House. By not doing so, we are letting Wales down and letting the House of Commons down, too.
Questions of deep principle arise in the Bill, such as how may we, as Welsh Members of Parliament, serve our constituencies? I accept the point that some hon. Members from English constituencies may have a contribution to make to the general argument about local government, although I suspect that the couple who spoke yesterday spoke for a deliberate reason: to ensure that they would not be Committee members. They quite clearly indicated their support for the retention of a county such as Montgomeryshire—an aspiration with which I certainly concur. That suggests a new principle—those who do not want to be Committee members will speak on Second Reading to avoid it.
I make that point especially having followed the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), who rightly said that he and the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) knew much more than anyone from any other part of Wales and certainly from England with regard to what was right for the good people of Wick. I accept that point. That is why hon. Members from Wales should have precedence over hon. Members from England. However good the general contribution of hon. Members from


England may be to the theory of local government, hon. Members from Wales know how that sort of legislation will affect their own square mile.

Mr. Sweeney: The point that I was trying to make was that hon. Members from the rest of Wales were unlikely to know very much more about Wick, Ewenny and St. Bride's Major than those from English constituencies.

Mr. Wigley: I even accept that. The point that I was making is that the people who know about Wick, Ewenny and St. Bride's Major should be on the Committee. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bridgend should be on the Committee to argue that case. Likewise, people who know what is needed in areas such as Dwyfor and Arfon should be on the Committee, or those who know about the needs of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, or of the needs of Ynys Mon, or of the needs of the various constituencies in Cardiff, or of Delyn, or of the two sides of Newport, or of Pembroke. What is good enough for the hon. Gentleman—he will be able to serve on that Committee—should be good enough for every other hon. Member who represents a Welsh constituency in the House.

Mr. Sweeney: Surely the point is that only a small proportion of Opposition Members desire or need to be on the Committee. They have no particular axe to grind. As I said in an earlier intervention, many Opposition Members have not even deigned to attend the debate, which shows that they, at least, are not unduly concerned about it.

Mr. Wigley: All four Plaid Cymru Members have certainly been here at various times during the debate, as has the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), representing the Liberals, and a good proportion of Labour Members—

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Wigley: I shall give way in a moment.
Hon. Members from Wales need the right to be on the Committee, and the right to take part in proceedings on parts of the Bill with far-reaching effects on their constituents and on the local authorities that serve their areas. That is what the Standing Order is there to provide, so that every hon. Member from Wales can serve on a Committee that deals with legislation affecting Wales alone. The Bill falls into that category.

Mr. Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people in the Vale of Glamorgan, which includes part of my constituency as well as the Vale of Glamorgan constituency, would be rightly horrified if the only views put forward from that area were those of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney)?

Mr. Wigley: Indeed. Conservative Members from Wales can rest assured that they have a safe place on the Committee. They will be there whether they want to be or not, and they will have the opportunity to speak up for their constituents—an opportunity that the Standing Order provides for us, but which the Government, by what they are doing tonight, are denying us. That is unacceptable.
Of course the Bill will affect all hon. Members from Wales. It will affect what happens to the pattern of local government in their areas and to the employees of the

district and county councils in their areas. It will affect me because in the town of Caernarfon the local government offices will presumably—

Mr. Richards: rose—

Mr. Wigley: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Caernarfon will presumably have the offices of a smaller unit of local government than it has now with Gwynedd county council. The reorganisation will also affect towns such as Pwllheli, where many valuable local government jobs may be lost. I therefore believe that I have a right, as does every other hon. Member from Wales, to be on the Committee to argue the case. Our local authorities, our councillors and our electorate expect us to be there to speak for them.
There are mechanisms that could allow that to happen, one of which is the amendment. Yes, it would allow a slightly larger Committee, although the Minister of State's arithmetic was not quite right, and his sum was one out. Be that as it may, there would be a slightly larger Committee, and hon. Members would be able to join. Perhaps some would have an interest only in certain parts of the Bill. They need not be there for all the proceedings, but at least they would have the opportunity to be there.
The other possibility is a Committee of the whole House, which, as with certain other Bills, would enable hon. Members to take part in the debates on matters of direct importance to their constituents.
How can we reasonably expect Members who represent English constituencies, however well versed they may be in the general theory of local government, to know of the problems experienced by a council such as Dwyfor, which undertakes all its work through the medium of the Welsh language? Welsh is the lingua franca of the council. How would that council carry out its work through the Welsh language in the new structure?
If I were a member of the Standing Committee I should like to raise other questions—concerning, for example, the right of teachers to be elected council members, which has not yet been clarified. I am sure that hon. Members from all parts of Wales will have had the same sorts of questions raised by their constituents.
There is a need for a Standing Committee that would allow us as constituency Members to take an active part. What was said earlier by Ministers and others who have defended the Government line made it clear that the Government regard it as perfectly in order for every issue raised in the Standing Committee to be redebated on the Floor of the House on Report. The occupant of the Chair at the time did not dissent from that idea, which can be the only interpretation of some remarks made earlier.
I hope that the Government and those who organise the business of the House will be able to stand by that promise and ensure that each of us who is not a member of the Standing Committee—we are being excluded by the way in which the motion is being steam-rollered through the House—will have an opportunity to come back on Report and go through every decision taken in Committee, because we will have been denied the opportunity to take part in the debates.
Another argument that I believe the people of Wales—

Sir Wyn Roberts: We dealt with that idea earlier. I thought that I responded clearly to the hon. Gentleman by saying that the selection of amendments for discussion on


Report is a matter for the Chair, but that, of course, Report stage gives an opportunity for hon. Members not on the Committee to participate in the debates.

Mr. Wigley: Of course the selection of amendments is a matter for the Chair, but the amount of time allowed is so often a matter for the Government, as we have seen this year. Important legislation—

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wigley: I shall give way in a moment.
Important social security legislation has been steamrollered through the House, with guillotines applied. I hope that what the Minister has said now means that there will be no question of the Bill's being guillotined on Report, and that every amendment that is selectable and debatable will have the chance and the time to be debated on the Floor of the House, so that each of us, as Members from Wales, will be able to take part in those debates. If it goes on day after day and week after week, so be it, because the Government are making a rod for their own back.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the answer given by the Minister earlier, and bear in mind the fact that the Bill will probably be in Committee twice a week every week for perhaps a month or six weeks? We will be lucky if we get one day, one and a half days or perhaps a maximum of two days on Report. Does my hon. Friend think that that is fair, in view of the Minister's answer?

Mr. Wigley: I am interpreting the Minister's comments to mean that we will get considerably more than one or one and a half days on Report; otherwise how on earth can we do what he said—debate all the amendments that are rightly selected by the Chair because they are in order? I trust that no amendments will be ruled out of order by virtue of the fact that they have been discussed in Committee. The fact that they are discussed in Committee will not allow constituency Members from Wales their right under Standing Order No. 86 to be involved in those debates. That right is being taken away from them tonight by a Government who do not represent Wales in any shape or form. Tonight, we are seeing the epitome of the breakdown of democratic government in Wales. In the amendment that was tabled on Second Reading, we saw the way in which constitutional legislation, which normally has consensus support, was rejected by 32 of the 38 Members of Parliament from Welsh constituencies; yet the motion is being railroaded through the House by a Government who have six out of 38 seats in Wales—they do not have a majority in Wales, and they can never aspire to one—to get a system of local government that suits their needs. To facilitate that, they are now rigging the Standing Orders to give them the majority that they need on the Committee.
The lesson for the people of Wales is clear: they cannot expect democracy for Wales from this Chamber. This Chamber is systemically incapable of defending the wishes, aspirations and values of the people of Wales, even in legislation to do with Wales—and Wales alone—because the Government insist on having their way, irrespective of the wishes of the people of Wales.
Until and unless we have our own elected Parliament in Wales with legislative power, we will have to suffer from the Government's behaviour year after year and decade after decade, giving us policies and structures of

government that undermine the wishes of the people of Wales and do not respond to the needs of our communities. That is the stark evidence for the need for us to have an elected Parliament, and the sooner we get it, the better.

Mr. Roger Evans: Madam Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that when Ministers come to the House and make statements, hon. Members are not called to ask questions if they have not heard the statements. Is it in order for hon. Members to speak in a debate when they were not present for the opening speeches from the Front Benches?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is no rule about that; it is at the discretion of the Chair.

Mr. Evans: I believe in "back to basics". I had a commitment to dine my wife this evening and I took the view that that was more important than listening to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). I came here after listening to the opening words of my right hon. Friend the Minister. I took the view—

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: rose—

Mr. Evans: No, I shall finish this point. I took the view that the debate would follow the usual tedious, predictable course which we knew full well it would. As a great parliamentary occasion, this is mock outrage and indignation, and simply a squalid party-political battle of exactly the sort that all hon. Members who are here expected. Let me make that clear.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: What course of his meal was the hon. Gentleman eating when the Minister was speaking?

Mr. Evans: Probably the first and second courses and then I came as quickly as I could. The Strangers' Dining Room is an excellent institution. I regard as very good those who afford all those facilities to us.
Let me take the matter a step further. At the end of the day, it is party which matters. Party politics introduce an element of principle and unity, not regionalism, factionalism and constituency interests. The Government, rightly or wrongly, as Opposition Members might say, won the last general election with a platform to put forward their policies. I know that Opposition Members say that the Government should not have done so, but they might take a different view now. It is clear that the Government have a mandate from the electorate to carry out their election platform.
The great difference between this place and the Italian Parliament is that under our system of one person, one vote, one constituency, at least what one votes more is more or less what one gets. There is none of the unpredictability which is a feature of other electoral systems. I have no doubt that the Conservative interest in Wales would be excellently served, as would be the Liberal interest in Wales, by some complicated system of proportional representation. There might be rather more of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on that sort of basis. But we are a United Kingdom Parliament and, on the basis of the accepted rules, that is
It is all very well indulging in mock indignation at what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has done this evening—a perfectly conventional and ordinary parliamentary manoeuvre for a Government who have a majority—but, in the end, it is complete nonsense. I listened with interest to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery construe Standing Order No. 86(2) as if it were a statute. We had the precise meaning of the proviso explained with the clarity and accuracy that I would expect of learned counsel explaining a point of law. But the House is not governed in its rules and orders by normal rules governing a statute. The majority ultimately, within those rules, gets its way, and rightly. It is what the British public expects.

Mr. Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this place is the High Court of Parliament and that, although we do not construe the Standing Orders like a statute, because we have rather more flexible rules and procedures, nevertheless we should at least strive to reach a just solution rather than a solution that serves the narrow interests of one political party?

Mr. Evans: Unhappily, the just solution is a matter of controversy. I suggest that the important thing is that the Conservative Government won the last general election and, on the basis of their majority, will have their way. That is how the rules are until the next general election.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although this may be the High Court of Parliament, Opposition Members would have something to say if we all turned up in our wigs and gowns?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It might add, in the case of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, a certain dignity to the proceedings, but that is not the conventional way in which we proceed.
Ultimately, the Government have a majority. They have a mandate and they must do what is right and proper.
The second way of attacking what my right hon. Friend has done this evening is to say that, somehow or other, there is a lack of knowledge of what goes on in Ewenny, Magor or Wick, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I hope that my hon. Friend is having the dinner which his excellent speech deserved.
If one debates a matter of English local government, one cannot seriously expect an hon. Member from Cornwall to be familiar with the details and intricacies of communities in Northumberland, or an hon. Member from Kent to understand what goes on in Carlisle or thereabouts.

Mr. Wigley: That is the problem.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) says, with conviction and passion, that that is the problem and, from his perspective, he is absolutely right. If the Welsh republican movement wants to declare independence I can see that its argument is coherent and logical within the premises that it puts forward. But for those of us who stood for election, as did most of the hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, on the basis that we are the United Kingdom, that is a minority viewpoint

which, while eccentric, interesting and sometimes expressed with fascination and conviction, is simply, in the view of the great majority, wrong.
I could develop this argument by pointing out that I do not think that the hon. Member for Caernarfon really understands the details in Llanthony or Portskewett. I could go on a geographical tour of my constituency to argue that perhaps not all hon. Members understand these points, but that would not be helpful. This is a perfectly straightforward, ordinary exercise of the Government's powers, a Government who command a majority in the House. That was the verdict of the British nation at the last general election and my right hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he is doing.

Mr. Win Griffiths: As has been said many times, the whole purpose of this Standing Order is to enable Welsh matters to be debated by Welsh Members. Our amendment is very much a second-best arrangement in that, at least, the Committee would include all Welsh Members, even if the Government had to bring in English Members to secure their majority.
Why should Welsh Members, rather than English Members, be given precedence for the purposes of considering the Bill? Let us consider the process by which we arrived at this stage. A consultation paper was issued in 1991. During the consultation process, all Welsh Members were in close contact with people in local government. The White Paper that was issued subsequently generated further interest and debate. Then there were the Welsh Grand Committee debates on the Government's proposals. In addition, these matters have often been debated during Question Time. There was also the debate on the Queen's Speech, in which a number of important changes in the Government's proposals for Wales were announced. The debates in the House of Lords saw the involvement of Welsh Members in further consultation with those who have an interest in local government in Wales. Welsh Members have been constantly involved in the debate since the Government's consultation paper was issued about three years ago.
How can English Members, parachuted in at the last moment, be expected to be as well informed as Welsh Members? Let us take, for example, what happened during the debates in another place. The Government were represented by the Lord Advocate, who is a Scottish earl. Let us look at some of the things that the Government, in notes and guidance, asked him to say. I refer hon. Members to columns 1735–36 of Volume 551 of the House of Lords Official Report, which record the reference of my noble Friend Lord Prys-Davies to the Minister's notes on clauses. Those notes point out that the weight of representations from the communities of Cynwyd and Llandrillo in Denbighshire was considered in the decision to allow them to move. In Flintshire, the changes covering the whole of Delyn reflected the overwhelming weight of local opinion. The communities of Ystradgynlais and Tawe Uchaf had been added to Mid-Wales after the publication of the White Paper because of the strongly expressed wishes of local residents. But in respect of the Vale of Glamorgan and the Bridgend changes, the notes on clauses said that they were largely rural and agricultural communities and had more in common with the Vale of Glamorgan than with the town of Bridgend.
Nothing was said about the three tests of opinion. In one of those, there was a turnout of 75 per cent., and nearly 90 per cent. of voters in the communities of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick voiced their desire to remain with Bridgend. That was excluded altogether from the Government's notes. How could the Scottish earl be expected to know about things that had been deliberately hidden from him? Lord Rodger of Earlsferry was led to explain one of the reasons for the case that these three communities should go with the Vale of Glamorgan in these words:
Again, that is shown by the fact that in winter it is snow-ploughs from the Vale which clear the snow from the roads in the Wick area."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 February 1994; Vol. 551, c. 1738.]
I have to tell the House that that is not true. All these roads are cleared by snow-ploughs from the Vale of Glamorgan. A snow-plough from South Glamorgan comes into Mid-Glamorgan in the community of Wick only because, when it gets to the boundary, there is no turning circle. The snow-plough has to come into Mid-Glamorgan and the community of Wick to turn round and get back into the Vale of Glamorgan.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Will the hon. Gentleman explain to me how the activities of the snow-ploughs relate to the number of Members who will form the Standing Committee?

Mr. Win Griffiths: Quite simply, a Scottish earl in the House of Lords said something that was not correct about a community that I represent. Because of the Standing Order, I will not be able to represent those communities on the Committee. I would dearly love to serve on it, but the Government are stopping me representing my constituents, who do not want to be part of the Vale of Glamorgan, on the Committee.
There are other circumstances in which the House will not be able to hear the true voice of the people of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick. The hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) has just returned to the Chamber. He will be able to testify that, at a meeting in my constituency last Friday evening, he told about 200 people, of whom only One wanted to go with him into the Vale of Glamorgan, that he would entirely ignore their views because he felt that what they wanted was not in their best interests. They had told him clearly they did not want to be there.

Mr. Sweeney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that I also told the audience of some 175 people that I would represent what I perceived to be the best interests of my constituents? Does he agree that that is the duty of all hon. Members?

Mr. Griffiths: Those people are not his constituents and they have told him plainly that it is not in their best interest to be in the Vale of Glamorgan. Quite a number of my constituents in the community of Ewenny can walk into the town centre of Bridgend in 10 minutes. If the motion is passed, those people will not be able to use the library in Bridgend because they will not be part of that community. If they do not work in that community, they will not pay tax in that community and they will be disbarred from using the facilities.
What the Government propose for Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick is a complete negation of democracy: they are putting democracy into disrepute. Their proposal

negates the principles that they proposed for the reform —that it should be local and respect the wishes of local people. The Government are not doing that, and even at this stage I plead with Ministers to make a change that everyone in the three communities, apart from one person, would welcome.

Mr. Paul Flynn: We are approaching the end of the debate and we are about to see in the Chamber a spectacle that disgraces our democracy. From the four corners of the Palace, from rooms and dining rooms, streams of Members will enter the Chamber to vote and decide on an issue of which they have no knowledge and in which they have no interest. We do not blame them because they are English Members—they are Members who represent English constituencies.
Mine is not mock, but real indignation. The policy for Bills that affect Wales and only Wales is decided by people who are alien to Wales and have no knowledge about or interest in the subject.

Mr. Richards: rose—

Mr. Flynn: The hon. Gentleman must sit down as I am not giving way.
A number of years ago, in the 1980s, I visited Estonia, which was then smaller than Wales. Estonians were saying that they were being run by a nomenklatura of people who could not win elections—by a particular party and its fellow travellers. Estonia is now free, but Wales is still run by an unelected nomenklatura of Conservatives and their fellow travellers. That is no way to run a democracy.
There was a debate in the Chamber on 31 January 1881 that continued for 41 hours. My speech will be briefer than that. That debate was significant for a number of reasons. It introduced part of the constitution of the Chamber. Mr. Speaker Brand closed that debate in a way which he had no power to do, but he did so with the collaboration of both Front Benches. The debate went on for those hours because of the collaboration of a group of people from another corner of the British Isles, led by Charles Stewart Parnell.
We saw something yesterday in the Chamber which I think was ignored by the press, although it had some historic value. Every non-Tory Member signed a single motion, and we must learn from that. We must stay together in the Chamber. In the first vote in 1979, the anti-Tory vote in Wales was divided and the Tories ruled. They continue to rule because of that vote, and we must not let it happen again. We must realise the value of a union that comes together and sticks together.
Another union of nations is being discussed at the moment. The Government are demanding that if 27 per cent. of the European Union decides to block a motion, it cannot go through. Here we have a nation where 85 per cent. of the representatives are against the Bill, and we are being denied. Where is the democracy in that? Is not it outrageous that that is the Government's view in the European Union, and that they deny us it here?

Mr. Win Griffiths: What about subsidiarity?

Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend mentions subsidiarity. Our definition of that would be that decisions should be taken at the best level—the level at which people have the most knowledge and where representation is most sensitive to the decision-making processes. To the Government,


subsidiarity means taking decisions at the level at which they have political control. That is not the case in Europe, because they have only one set of allies in Europe. They have broken away from the European Union and their only allies on the issue of the social chapter are Mr. Le Pen's fascists. Those people are the inheritors of—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman warms to his theme too much, may I inquire how this relates to the matter before the House tonight?

Mr. Flynn: Because this is a matter of democracy, Madam Deputy Speaker. You interrupted me before I did in fact warm up.
The whole process is about democracy. The point of Standing Order No. 86 is to allow every hon. Member elected by the people of Wales to determine Bills that affect Wales, and Wales only. We make no claims to sit on Bills that affect Scotland, Northern Ireland or England. [Interruption.] Most Welsh Members take no part in Bills that specifically affect England, and those are very rare. However, we demand that right for Wales in the name of democracy, justice and common sense.
The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) is a great advocate of the name Monmouth itself, and he appeals to history in this matter. Yet the hon. Gentleman would like to see the name Gwent disappear from the map. Let us have some historical pedigree. The name of Gwent has existed for 2,000 years. One of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Front Bench, who was born in my constituency and is a former Home Secretary, has described when Christianity came to this country. When St Augustine brought it here, the ancestors of the speakers of anglo-saxon English were howling, pagan barbarians. At the same time in Wales and Ireland, there was a sophisticated Christian religion.
I must sit down, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are being asked to accept that a wholly undemocratic system can be imposed upon us. What has happened in Wales is the reverse of what has happened in every country in eastern Europe. Those countries now have their own democracies, and they have people running them who were elected. The Government cannot be elected in Wales and, in imposing Bills that apply to Wales, they deny us the right to sit on Committees relating to them. We do not object to hon. Members representing English constituencies contributing to the debates—of course they can. However, I question whether the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), who regularly contributes to Welsh questions, is worth denying Welsh Opposition Members the chance to speak.
I find myself limited to a few sentences tonight and I must sit down in a moment. The problem is the fatuous ramblings from Conservative Members. We have the psychotic, elephantine venom of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) and speeches that are intended to waste time. That means that we, the elected representatives of Wales, are denied the opportunity of making the full speeches that we would like to make to the House.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: It is a great honour to be able to speak at the Dispatch Box and represent the Welsh cause. After I have made my speech,

I may never get the opportunity again, so I am grateful. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) for giving me such a wonderful warm-up speech.
Standing Order No. 86 has existed for 87 years. For 85 of those years, it has not been the subject of any controversy or debate. Yet this Government in this period of office have, in less than two years, whipped their English Members through the Lobby to overturn the constitutional safeguards for Wales in Standing Order No. 86, not just once or twice; they are about to do it for the third time in less than two years. They did so on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, on the Welsh Language Bill and now on local government reform. What greater testimony can there be to the centralising tendency of the Tory party?
As other hon. Members have mentioned, the Foreign Secretary is today in Europe. He is portrayed by his party as a champion of devolution. He is ranting against centralising Brussels, but here in London the least devolved of all Europe's democracies wishes to overturn the constitutional safeguards given to the people of Wales in the 1900s, would you please. What audacious hypocrisy that is.

Mr. Roger Evans: While I understand the hon. Gentleman warming to his theme, the comparison with France suggests that we are a very decentralised, locally democratic country compared with the Jacobin republic, which believes in centralised administration. Does not he recognise that a prefect in every commune might be the ultimate Tory threat?

Mr. Jones: From that intervention I can only gather that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) has not been to France for more than 20 years.
Why do the Government, alone in Europe, feel so insecure that they deny the right of their constituent peoples to make any independent decision, even on when and where they can use their own language, while simultaneously jealously guarding their veto on collective action taken in Brussels? Even the Secretary of State must acknowledge that there is a certain degree of schizophrenia in that action.
Standing Order No.86 would give all 38 Welsh Members the right to scrutinise and debate the Local Government (Wales) Bill in Committee. The Bill will change historic boundaries and institutions of long standing. In yesterday's debate, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason)—who made a useful speech —made much of the need to find the right balance between efficient delivery of service and the strength of local community and tradition. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree about the importance of achieving and establishing that balance.
The assessment of how to deliver efficient services is a contentious matter on which the Secretary of State will have no shortage of professional advice. Local knowledge is useful, but not, I contend, essential. But how are we to assess the second part of the equation—the strength of local community and tradition to which the hon. Member for Bromsgrove referred—if not by debate with local representatives?
The Government will allow no more than 19 Welsh Members to serve on the Committee. Only 13 of the 32 Welsh Opposition Members who signed yesterday's amendment will have the opportunity to debate the Bill in


detail in Committee. Only Tory Welsh Members will have an automatic right to represent their constituents. We are all affected: there should be no first and second-class constituencies in Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who was supported by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), suggested that the Government could get out of their difficulties by agreeing to debate important parts of the Bill—clause 1 and schedule 1—on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend offered the Government a way out of their problems.
The hon. Members for Clwyd North-West (Mr. Richards) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) tried to explain that Opposition Members were somehow ineligible for the Standing Committee because of their Front-Bench responsibilities. I am grateful to the hon. Members for their concern. They clearly propose that the Government's decision to abandon Standing Order No. 86 is an attempt to aid the Opposition, to avoid causing us embarrassment. I can tell the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West that I have been inundated by pleas from my Front-Bench colleagues to serve on the Committee, and there is no rule to prevent them from doing so.
They are my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) who is our spokesman on education; our law and order spokesman, if I can call him that, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael); certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and many others. I shall not mention them all. They are united in demanding their right to sit on the Committee, but I cannot provide all of them with the right to do that so I am afraid most of them will be disappointed.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, those who will sit on the Committee will be English Members whom we believe have no interest in local government in Wales. Time will tell, but we have had recent experience of the Welsh Language Bill. Nine English Members were parachuted into that Bill and an examination of the proceedings shows that between them they managed to contribute no more and no fewer than 41 words in the entire debate.

The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. David Lightbown): That was far too long.

Mr. Jones: That comment is to be expected. What proper debate or scrutiny can the people of Wales expect in the light of such a comment?
No fewer than 19 Opposition Members managed with considerable difficulty to take part in yesterday's debate, but many of them will not be allowed to represent the strength of their communities when the Bill is examined in detail. Of course the hon. Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) and for Brecon and Radnor will be able to represent their communities, as will the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West in his own inimitable style. They will represent their communities whether they want to or not, but most Opposition Members will be excluded and, as a result, their communities will be denied the advocacy of their elected Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has reason to congratulate the Government on some of the decisions that they took yesterday, but what

about my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and for Rhondda and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells)? They have important issues that they want to raise in detail in Committee, but they will be excluded. I tell Conservative Members what my hon. Friends know: the strength of community feeling in Merthyr is no less than that in the Rhondda or in Cynon Valley or Taff Ely. As a Rhondda boy, I speak with some feeling about the strength of community feeling there. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend wishes to represent the strength of community feeling that remains in Bridgend. He has done so today and he did so briefly yesterday, but he should have the opportunity to debate the matter when the Committee meets before the Easter recess.
Reading the debate on 15 April 1907, following which Standing Order No. 86 was instituted, I was struck by the similar arguments being used then, as now, and, by and large, by the same political parties, although my own political party was a rather minor part of that Parliament. Then, as now, the Conservatives—calling themselves the Unionist party—were not too well represented in Wales. Indeed, in the 1906 election they did not succeed in electing a single Welsh Tory. If today's Tories continue to treat Welsh sentiments with such disregard, they could soon find themselves repeating that 1906 result.
During that debate, the Conservative Member for Gravesend, Sir Gilbert Parker, remarked:
Behind the proposals of the Prime Minister"—
then Sir Campbell-Bannerman—
was a process of devolution … intended to lead up to the larger policy".
Some 87 years later, the people of Wales are still waiting for that. It has been a long time coming but we will get there, and quite soon now.
Sir Gilbert Parker went on to make another statement which has loud echoes today:
Presently they would have from the Nationalist Benches"—
meaning the Irish—
a proposal to establish an Irish Standing Committee."—[Official Report, 15 April 1907; Vol. 172, c. 674.]
What an irony.
Only last week, the Government set up an Irish Select Committee. Perhaps if devolution had been extended 87 years ago to the people of Ireland, the history of these British islands in the 20th century would have been somewhat different and less bloody.
While talking of Ireland, may I take the opportunity of thanking the Irish Unionist Members who walked through the Lobby with us last night? I certainly shall not forget their support.
The Government maintain that the Standing Committee must reflect the composition of the House, yet they are perfectly happy to set up Select Committees—such as the one dealing with Northern Ireland—which are clearly anything but representative of the House of Commons.
If the Government argue that Select Committees are an entirely different matter and that only Standing Committees need reflect that balance, why do we have the prospect of eight or nine English Tories being parachuted into the Committee but no Ulster Unionists? Given the way that they voted last night, most Opposition Members would have more confidence in the interest and sympathy of Unionist Members than some bored, disinterested whipped Staffordshire Member who is reading his mail.
Labour is prepared, though reluctantly, to concede to the Government a majority on the Committee if the Government will allow all Welsh Members the right to


take part. Our amendment would allow the Government to place 25 whipped and loyal foot soldiers on the Committee. That guarantees a Government majority, when the Minister has done his mathematics properly, yet enables the arguments to be made for all of Wales. How could we possibly be more accommodating than that?

Sir Wyn Roberts: There is nothing wrong with my mathematics. There are 32 Welsh Opposition Members; 32 taken out of 63 leaves 31.

Mr. Jones: I am surprised at the Minister's difficulty in learning from what has occurred already. One of those Welsh Opposition Members will, of course, be the Chairman. I was a Whip on the Welsh Language Bill Committee when a poor job was done by my opposite number and two Conservative Members went AWOL. Nevertheless, the Chairman voted with the Government, as all Chairmen have to do, and so succeeded in stopping an Opposition amendment.
Rejecting our offer is a calculated insult to the people of Wales; calculated because the Government have no realistic ambition of gaining seats in Wales and, with so few at present, they are not unduly concerned at sacrificing what remains. Local government reform in England, especially in the south-east of England, will be treated in an altogether different fashion, with far more concern about the strength of feeling, about the views of elected Members and, above all, about the number of seats that they may lose.
The six Welsh Tories today are in a difficult position. Let us have some sympathy for them. They know that they have their seats on a short lease. Their electors expect them to speak for Wales, but their party expects them to ignore Wales. What should they do? Welsh interests, they recite, are safeguarded here in a London Parliament. Yet they would tear up or set aside the rules of the House in order to secure advantage for their own party.
Welsh Conservative Members say that there is no need for devolution, no need for a parliament or assembly in Wales. Any other conclusion, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor was saying to me the other day, would set us on a slippery slope with full independence and the end of the Union at the bottom. Those so-called Unionists have so little faith in the Union and so little faith in the historic and economic ties that bind the United Kingdom for better or for worse. This fragile flower, they believe, cannot allow the independence of action in Wales to determine whether we dam our own rivers, would you please, or whether we can draw up local government boundaries, or when and whether we can speak our own tongue.
There comes a time when decisions like those and others will be taken not here in London but in Wales where they should be taken. If the Government succeed tonight in overturning the Standing Order, it will only bring forward the day when such decisions will no longer be taken here. I urge the House to accept the Opposition's amendment and to reject the Government's motion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Last night, we had a symbolic wind-up of the Local Government (Wales) Bill

when two former councillors concluded the debate. Tonight, two former members of Cardiff city council have concluded the debate on how we should handle the Bill's Committee stage. I should congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) on his appearance at the Dispatch Box this evening, although my congratulations must be full of sympathy for him. I feel sure that he will make a better fist of trying to handle the Welsh portfolio than the exhausted dinosaurs sitting alongside him who are now burnt out.
I must take the hon. Gentleman to task. He sought to accuse my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary of ranting today about Europe. What a monstrous charge. Clearly, it was the hon. Gentleman who was trying to rant, but he was completely out-ranted by that representative of the Welsh republican movement, the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
I fear that there is one other hon. Member whom I must take to task this evening for his contribution—my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans). I have to reject what he said in that he was unkind about Opposition Members when he accused them of mock outrage, mock protest and mock indignation. He should know that what we heard from the Opposition Benches this evening was a traditional debate on Welsh affairs. We had the full depth of intellect and sincerity that they always bring to these matters. I want to make up for that with my hon. Friend, because I am grateful. We heard a scholarly legal discourse matching, even surpassing, that of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), in considering exactly the Standing Order that we are supposed to be debating this evening but which many hon. Members did not choose to debate. That is what we must be concerned about.
My hon. Friend returned to the high point of debate that had been established by my right hon. Friend the Minister when he opened the debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his ringing endorsement of the motion.
The debate for the Opposition was opened by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). In his typically gentle and thoughtful way, he suggested that we should not alter the rules. He sought to concede that, naturally, the Government would want to maintain their majority on any Committee examining a Bill. He then trotted out the most dubious of figures, which even he had to admit he could not understand, and said that there would be 63 members on the Committee, or, if he had got it wrong, 64. We were almost into a bingo caller's evening—"Any advance on 64?"

Mr. Morgan: The Under-Secretary has changed his speaking style in this debate. He is trying to sound as though he is Wynford Vaughan Thomas describing the battle of Britain from the back seat of a Spitfire. We much preferred his old masonic lodge, retirement do, avuncular manner. What I actually said was that, in the almost inconceivable circumstance that I was wrong, the Government had a solution. I am not wrong. The Minister of State is not claiming that I am wrong, so why is the Under-Secretary taking so much trouble to accept that the figure of 63 gives the Minister the Government majority that he so urgently seeks? Am I wrong, or am I not wrong?

Mr. Jones: That question was answered most succinctly by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), who nailed the hon. Gentleman's


point and said that he had come out once again with "Aberpergau" mathematics—his own peculiar breed of mathematics that only he could come out with. The hon. Gentleman tried to give us his personal interpretation of Standing Order No. 86(2)(ii).

Mr. Morgan: The Under-Secretary says that it is my personal interpretation. I assure him that it comes from the authorities of the House. Has he checked with the authorities of the House—as I did before I spoke—the mathematics that would mean that 63 would give the Government a majority if the Chairman were an Opposition Member?

Mr. Evans: Quite simply, if one takes 32 from 63—the number of non-Conservative Members of the House—that leaves 31. If one of those 31 is the Chairman of the Committee, that leaves 30 for the Government, does it not? That is quite simple mathematics that anyone can do. If the hon. Gentleman had stopped to think, he could have checked the mathematics before he had anything to do with the amendment.
I refer now to the personal interpretation that the hon. Gentleman offered about Standing Order No. 86(2)(ii). I suppose that I had better reassure the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that I have read the Standing Order again this evening, and clearly my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has read it. Indeed, I am reading from his copy of it.
Most amazingly, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West sought to accuse the rationale behind what we propose as gerrymandering, dragging out the same old arguments again. I was almost expecting to hear him claim that we changed our minds and are now going in for separate unitary authorities for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Blaenau Gwent because we believe that that is the simple step towards winning those constituencies at a general election.
It was with a sense of nostalgia that I listened to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West—not that he made his usual speech. I looked back to Hansard of 9 June, which reports that I moved the suspension of Standing Orders to deal with the Bill that is now the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993. I found, amazingly, that the hon. Gentleman had engaged in an old ploy, and waved the old school tie at me. "We boys from Whitchurch grammar must stick together!" That was his cause for intervening on my speech—a tactic which he has used more than once.
I do not know whether I have ever thanked the hon. Gentleman for using the old school tie in that way. In fact, he is not the only hon. Member with whom I share an old school tie; I also share one with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
Once, when I was speaking from this Dispatch Box, I found that I was running out of material and that my speech was likely to finish early. My Whip told me that, whatever I did, I must carry on speaking until 7 pm. Suddenly, I saw a lifebelt in the Chamber—the hon. Member for Cardiff, West was trying to intervene. When the hon. Gentleman gets going, a Minister has minutes, even hours, to fill out his speech.
But I must not confine my remarks to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. I want to sum up, properly, all the important questions that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) referred to the basic criteria on which Opposition Members

might serve on the Committee, or might not think it appropriate to do so. He listed 12 Opposition Members who—because of Front-Bench responsibilities, or for other reasons—might be considered ineligible, or consider themselves ineligible. He went on to discourse very knowledgeably on hon. Members' contributions in regard to local government, and local government reorganisation.

Mr. Michael: Does the Minister accept that his hon. Friend was entirely wrong? Opposition Members represent their constituencies first. That is why we want to sit on the Committee—even those of us with Front-Bench responsibilities.

Mr. Jones: No, I do not accept that my hon. Friend was entirely wrong. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I mean to adduce from tonight's debate confirmation from his hon. Friends that my hon. Friend made an appropriate contribution!
The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) acknowledged the criteria advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West—I think because he recognised that he had been identified as being to the fore on the Opposition Benches in taking an interest in local government matters. The concept was expanded by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central, who suggested in an intervention that membership of a local authority would be an appropriate criterion—another form of selection to contribute to a debate begun by my hon. Friend.
The question of eligibility was further enhanced by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). His view was that English Members would not say enough in Committee. I find it difficult to reply to anything else that the hon. Gentleman said, as the rest of his speech rehearsed arguments about the Bill. That is not the context of tonight's debate. I am afraid, however, that his suggestion that English Members should not sit on the Committee because they would not say enough suggested to me the truism about empty vessels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor explored further the apparent hostility to English Members, citing last night's speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). His view—which has been echoed by others—was that they had made valuable, worthwhile contributions; another instance is the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) to our debate on the Welsh Language Bill. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor made a meaningful point when he pondered the philosophical question whether the balance of contributions might not have much more to do with the absence of depth of the amendments tabled by Opposition Members in Committee.
The House would do well to reflect on the hostility frequently displayed by Opposition Members towards Members representing English constituencies. Such hostility can sink as low as calling "Taff" in order to heckle non-Welsh Members who wish to speak during Welsh Question Time. It certainly betrays an arrogance that is completely unentitled and most inappropriate to our debate.
I can at least contrast such hostility with the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for


Montgomery, who sought to debate the Standing Order. He asked whether we would be introducing new proposals to change it and in the same way that my hon. Friend—

It being Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [11 March], That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 318.

Division No. 168]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ainger, Nick
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Denham, John


Allen, Graham
Dewar, Donald


Alton, David
Dixon, Don


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dobson, Frank


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Donohoe, Brian H.



Armstrong, Hilary
Dowd, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Austin-Walker, John
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Barnes, Harry
Eastham, Ken


Barron, Kevin
Enright, Derek


Battle, John
Etherington, Bill


Bayley, Hugh
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fatchett, Derek


Bell, Stuart
Faulds, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Fisher, Mark


Benton, Joe
Flynn, Paul


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Berry, Dr. Roger
Foster, Don (Bath)


Betts, Clive
Foulkes, George


Blunkett, David
Fraser, John


Boateng, Paul
Fyfe, Maria


Boyes, Roland
Galbraith, Sam


Bradley, Keith
Galloway, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gapes, Mike


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Garrett, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
George, Bruce


Burden, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Byers, Stephen
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Callaghan, Jim
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Canavan, Dennis
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Gunnell, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hain, Peter


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Mike


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hardy, Peter


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Harvey, Nick


Coffey, Ann
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Doug


Connarty, Michael
Heppell, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hinchliffe, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoey, Kate


Corston, Ms Jean
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cousins, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Cox, Tom
Hood, Jimmy


Cryer, Bob
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hoyle, Doug



Dafis, Cynog
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Davidson, Ian
Hutton, John


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Illsley, Eric





Ingram, Adam
Paisley, Rev Ian


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Parry, Robert


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Patchett, Terry


Jamieson, David
Pickthall, Colin


Janner, Greville
Pike, Peter L.


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Prescott, John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Purchase, Ken


Jowell, Tessa
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Radice, Giles


Keen, Alan
Raynsford, Nick


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Redmond, Martin


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Reid, Dr John


Khabra, Piara S.
Rendel, David


Kilfoyle, Peter
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kirkwood, Archy
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lewis, Terry
Rogers, Allan


Litherland, Robert
Rooker, Jeff


Livingstone, Ken
Rooney, Terry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rowlands, Ted


Loyden, Eddie
Ruddock, Joan


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCartney, Ian
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McCrea, Rev William
Short, Clare


Macdonald, Calum
Simpson, Alan


McKelvey, William
Skinner, Dennis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McMaster, Gordon
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McNamara, Kevin
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Spellar, John


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mahon, Alice
Steinberg, Gerry


Mandelson, Peter
Stevenson, George


Marek, Dr John
Stott, Roger


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Straw, Jack


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Maxton, John
Tyler, Paul


Meacher, Michael
Vaz, Keith


Meale, Alan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Michael, Alun
Walley, Joan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Wareing, Robert N


Milburn, Alan
Watson, Mike


Miller, Andrew
Welsh, Andrew


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wicks, Malcolm


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wigley, Dafydd


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morley, Elliot
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Winnick, David


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wise, Audrey


Mudie, George
Worthington, Tony


Mullin, Chris
Wray, Jimmy


Murphy, Paul
Wright, Dr Tony


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Brien; Michael (N W'kshire)



O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Olner, William
Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Ray Powell.


O'Neill, Martin



Orme, Rt Hon Stanley





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arbuthnot, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Ashby, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Aspinwall, Jack


Amess, David
Atkins, Robert






Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Faber, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fabricant, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fishburn, Dudley


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bates, Michael
Forth, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beggs, Roy
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
French, Douglas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fry, Sir Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Gale, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gallia, Phil


Booth, Hartley
Gardiner, Sir George


Boswell, Tim
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, Andrew
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowis, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, John


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butler, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Cash, William
Hawkins, Nick


Churchill, Mr
Hawksley, Warren


Clappison, James
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heald, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hendry, Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Hicks, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Congdon, David
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Conway, Derek
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Horam, John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cran, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunter, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Bernard


Dorrell, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Sir Anthony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, Sir James


Eggar, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Elletson, Harold
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knox, Sir David


Evennett, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)





Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Legg, Barry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shersby, Michael


Lidington, David
Sims, Roger


Lightbown, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Soames, Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Speed, Sir Keith


Luff, Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spink, Dr Robert


MacKay, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Maclean, David
Sproat, Iain


McLoughlin, Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan


Marlow, Tony
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sumberg, David


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sweeney, Walter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sykes, John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moate, Sir Roger
Thomason, Roy


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Moss, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Needham, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nelson, Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tracey, Richard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tredinnick, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steve
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Ottaway, Richard
Walden, George


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Patten, Rt Hon John
Ward, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pawsey, James
Waterson, Nigel


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Watts, John


Pickles, Eric
Wells, Bowen


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whitney, Ray


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Rathbone, Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wilkinson, John


Richards, Rod
Willetts, David


Riddick, Graham
Wilshire, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wolfson, Mark


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wood, Timothy


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Yeo, Tim


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ross, William (E Londonderry)



Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Tellers for the Noes:


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard



Sackville, Tom

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided:Ayes 317,Noes 271.

Division No. 169]
[10.18 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aitken, Jonathan
Dover, Den


Alexander, Richard
Duncan, Alan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dunn, Bob


Amess, David
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arbuthnot, James
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Elletson, Harold


Ashby, David
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Atkins, Robert
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evennett, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Faber, David


Baldry, Tony
Fabricant, Michael


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bates, Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Fishburn, Dudley


Beggs, Roy
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Body, Sir Richard
French, Douglas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Sir Peter


Booth, Hartley
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bowden, Andrew
Garnier, Edward


Bowis, John
Gill, Christopher


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gillan, Cheryl


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bright, Graham
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorst, John


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Budgen, Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Burns, Simon
Grylls, Sir Michael


Burt, Alistair
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butcher, John
Hague, William


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carrington, Matthew
Hannam, Sir John


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cash, William
Harris, David


Churchill, Mr
Haselhurst, Alan


Clappison, James
Hawkins, Nick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawksley, Warren


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hayes, Jerry


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heald, Oliver


Coe, Sebastian
Hendry, Charles


Colvin, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Hicks, Robert


Conway, Derek
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Horam, John


Cormack, Patrick
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Couchman, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunter, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jack, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)





Jenkin, Bernard
Richards, Rod


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knapman, Roger
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shersby, Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Roger


Legg, Barry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Soames, Nicholas


Lidington, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Luff, Peter
Spring, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sproat, Iain


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacKay, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, David
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stephen, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stewart, Allan


Malone, Gerald
Streeter, Gary


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Sweeney, Walter


Marlow, Tony
Sykes, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thomason, Roy


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Moate, Sir Roger
Thumham, Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Monro, Sir Hector
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Needham, Richard
Trend, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walden, George


Norris, Steve
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Phillip
Ward, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Page, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Paice, James
Watts, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wells, Bowen


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whitney, Ray


Pawsey, James
Whittingdale, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Widdecombe, Ann


Pickles, Eric
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilkinson, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Willetts, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wilshire, David


Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wolfson, Mark






Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Young, Rt Hon Sir George





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dowd, Jim


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Ainger, Nick
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Allen, Graham
Eastham, Ken


Alton, David
Enright, Derek


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Etherington, Bill


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Ashton, Joe
Fatchett, Derek


Austin-Walker, John
Faulds, Andrew


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barnes, Harry
Fisher, Mark


Barron, Kevin
Flynn, Paul


Battle, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foulkes, George


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fraser, John


Bell, Stuart
Fyfe, Maria


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galbraith, Sam


Bennett, Andrew F.
Galloway, George


Benton, Joe
Gapes, Mike


Bermingham, Gerald
Garrett, John


Berry, Dr. Roger
George, Bruce


Betts, Clive
Gerrard, Neil


Blunkett, David
Gilbert, RtHon DrJohn


Boateng, Paul
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Boyes, Roland
Godsiff, Roger


Bradley, Keith
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gordon, Mildred


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Byers, Stephen
Gunnell, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Mike


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hanson, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Harman, Ms Harriet


Canavan, Dennis
Harvey, Nick


Cann, Jamie
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Henderson, Doug


Chisholm, Malcolm
Heppell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Coffey, Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Cohen, Harry
Hoon, Geoffrey


Connarty, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoyle, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cox, Tom
Hutton, John


Cryer, Bob
Illsley, Eric


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Dafis, Cynog
Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Greville


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Denham, John
Jowell, Tessa


Dewar, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dixon, Don
Keen, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)





Khabra, Piara S.
Prescott, John


Kilfoyle, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Purchase, Ken


Kirkwood, Archy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Radice, Giles


Lewis, Terry
Raynsford, Nick


Litherland, Robert
Redmond, Martin


Livingstone, Ken
Reid, Dr John


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rendel, David


Llwyd, Elfyn
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Loyden, Eddie
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


McAllion, John
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McAvoy, Thomas
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Ian
Rooker, Jeff


McCrea, Rev William
Rooney, Terry


Macdonald, Calum
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Rowlands, Ted


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


McLeish, Henry
Salmond, Alex


McMaster, Gordon
Sedgemore, Brian


McNamara, Kevin
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Madden, Max
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Short, Clare


Mahon, Alice
Simpson, Alan


Mandelson, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, David (SheWeston)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Soley, Clive


Martlew, Eric
Spearing, Nigel


Maxton, John
Spellar, John


Meacher, Michael
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Meale, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Michael, Alun
Stevenson, George


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Straw, Jack


Milburn, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Miller, Andrew
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Tyler, Paul


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Vaz, Keith


Morgan, Rhodri
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Morley, Elliot
Walley, Joan


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wareing, Robert N


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watson, Mike


Mudie, George
Welsh, Andrew


Mullin, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Murphy, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wilson, Brian


Olner, William
Winnick, David


O'Neill, Martin
Wise, Audrey


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Worthington, Tony


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wray, Jimmy


Parry, Robert
Wright, Dr Tony


Patchett, Terry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Noes:


Pope, Greg
Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. John Cummings.


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees), any Standing Committee appointed for consideration of the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords] shall consist of twenty-eight Members, including not fewer than nineteen Members sitting for

PETITION

Video Material

Mr. David Alton: It is my privilege to present a petition containing 100,000 signatures in support of an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill that will soon be tabled by almost 150 Members of Parliament who are drawn from all political parties. It seeks to introduce a new classification of "not suitable for home entertainment" to prevent gratuitously violent material being retailed or sold in video shops.
The petition states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of residents of the United Kingdom sheweth
The overwhelming evidence that exposure to images of a degrading or violent nature on film, television or video can desensitise the viewer and act as a trigger in the commission of acts of violence; that children are particularly at risk and that current systems of 'watersheds', parental oversight, and legislative regulation are inadequate.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will amend the Criminal Justice Bill before you at this time to ensure that such images are not available on video or broadcast on television, including cable and satellite networks.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
The petition is signed by Dr. Robert Song, the tutor in moral ethics at St. John's college, Durham, who is the chairman of the Movement for Christian Democracy and whose name is at the head of the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

The Solent (Habitats)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Mr. Barry Field: Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank Madam Speaker for allowing me this important debate. It has been prompted by a number of factors, the first of which is my election to the position of commodore of the House of Commons yacht club. It grieves me when I hear the suggestion that yachting and marine wildlife are not compatible. There is nothing that a yachtsman enjoys observing more than a shag or a cormorant busily fishing in the Solent. Yachtsmen and women are a more environmentally conscious group than practically any other sporting group. Indeed, I do not know whether the Minister has ever had the pleasure of observing dolphins playing around the bow of a sailing ship, or of watching the sun go down in the company of oyster catchers and curlews. If not, I tell him that they represent some of the most magical moments in our crowded lives.
My first reason for the debate is the desire to hand over to our grandchildren the wonderful inheritance of wildlife in the Solent, of which we are temporary custodians. My second reason is that there have been tremendous improvements in the quality of the Solent waters. Cetaceans are good indicators of pollution levels, and their return in recent years to the Solent is a better testimony to the Government's record than all of the Hansards and fine speeches in the world.
The suggestion that the Solent should be redesignated and no longer considered an estuary for the sake of the urban waste water treatment directive is worrying indeed. I am pleased that the National Rivers Authority is opposing that, and I hope very much that Ministers are too.
My third reason is that, as a paying member of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight wildlife trust, I promised that I would campaign for the Government to designate the Solent water under the habitats directive, and to get the Government to put right the problem that was created by the Law Lords in the now famous Alverstone marshes case. The marshes became a site of special scientific interest —or a SSSI as we more commonly know it. Despite that, considerable environmental damage was done on that site.
My fourth and final reason is the encouragement that the Select Committee had from the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). The members of the Committee were extremely disappointed by the Government's response to the report on coastal zone protection and planning. In correspondence with the Committee Chairman, the Minister gave us hope that the recommendations would be more carefully considered in future.
Yesterday, I attended the Royal Yachting Association's annual general meeting, which was presided over by Her Royal Highness Princess Anne. Again and again, the fear of the licensing of yachtsmen and the registration of boats came up at the meeting. Surely to goodness the opportunity of managing and regulating the Solent and the nation's coastal zone is wholly preferable to a raft of busybody legislation, which is about as enforceable as television and dog licences, and is also very intrusive.
The Committee heard today the Minister's official Robin Sharp, who was positive in his evidence to us about the future and about the possibility of the regulations. I hope that we will hear from the Minister that he is positive also.
In an article on the subject on 21 February in The Times, the environment correspondent, Nick Nuttall, stated:
The Government is this summer expected to announce two big marine nature reserves to improve protection for the wildlife around Britain … Conservationists claim that the Species and Habitats Directive offers tremendous opportunities for drafting tough laws to conserve the nation's marine heritage from over-fishing, shipping, pollution and dredging. But rather than bringing new laws in June, they say, there is growing evidence that the Environment Department will use old legislation that has proved to be inadequate.
Britannia rules the waves, but the Department of the Environment wavers on the rules.
I must pay tribute to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and to Adrian Penrose, the society's parliamentary officer, for help with the debate. The harbours and estuaries of the Solent support abundant plants, worms, molluscs and shellfish which, in turn, provide food for a large number of birds. In mid-winter, the Solent holds more than 110,000 wading birds and 45,000 wildfowl, making it the sixth most important site for water birds in the United Kingdom. It is internationally important as a bird migration route from the Arctic to Africa. Approximately 15 per cent.—25,000—of the world's population of dark-bellied Brent geese spend the winter on the Solent.
The wildlife value of the Solent's estuaries extends beyond its birds. The inter-tidal areas are important feeding and spawning grounds for commercially valuable fish. In addition, the Isle of Wight is home to the starlet sea anemone, a globally threatened species. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will yet consider that it may be a suitable candidate for the Prime Minister's Darwin initiative which he announced at the Rio conference.
The Government's statutory advisers, English Nature, describe the Solent and the Isle of Wight as being of national and international importance. It is an area of transition between the Lusitanean warm temperate and Boreal cold temperature provinces, with flora and fauna from both. In 1976, the United Kingdom ratified the Ramsar convention, named after the meeting venue of Ramsar in Iran. Those who are so used to juggling with the alphabet soup of Whitehall should note that the Ramsar convention takes its name after the town. That is another reason why I am having the debate this evening—I always refer to my wife as the ayatollah.
Contracting parties to the convention are required to promote the conservation of listed wetlands. More generally, contracting parties are exhorted to plan the wise use of wetlands in all areas of policy planning and formulation. Where listed sites are involved, damaging development can proceed only in the urgent national interest. Alternative sites are required to be listed in place of any so developed.
Almost all the Solent's inter-tidal areas have been notified as SSSIs and designated as special protection areas under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds, to which the United Kingdom is bound under European law, and as Ramsar sites. So far, only Chichester, Langstone and Pagham harbours have been designated as both. Last year, additional guidance was issued for the implementation of the wise use concept and appended to

resolution 5.6 of the Kushiro conference, which was the fifth conference of the contracting parties to the Ramsar convention.
In addition, the United Kingdom Government will shortly publish regulations to implement the EC habitats and species directive which requires, inter alia, protection of the wider marine environment. The Government's commitments under the biodiversity action plan and national sustainability strategy also require protection of the wildlife interest of the Solent.
The threats and problems facing the Solent are many. Despite its size, the Solent is under threat from permanent habitat destruction and from disturbance and pollution. Much of that stems from human population pressures. About 1.1 million people live within just 10 miles of the Solent and the whole area has seen substantial growth in recent years.
From 1930 to 1980, almost an eighth of the inter-tidal area of the Solent was lost to land claim and development. Although each individual threat may be small, together the threats add up alarmingly. Continued threats today include losses of habitat to roads and landfill and the many marinas and offshore facilities. With more than 32,000 yacht berths and moorings, the Solent is claimed to have the largest recreational sailing fleet in the world. The increasing numbers of sailboards, jet skis and other fun craft place ever greater pressure on the system. Shoreline activities and developments also have an important effect.
Disturbance to feeding or roosting birds prevents them from feeding and can be particularly harmful especially in the short winter days. Fast motor boats sailing close to and sometimes landing on the islands and spits holding nesting birds lead to increased nest predation and breeding failure.
Nature reserves such as those of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Langstone and Chichester harbours and the reserves of the statutory bodies and county trusts make a positive contribution to reconciling different conflicts in the coastal zone. Several local authorities have also established local nature reserves. The Newtown river nature reserve, which has been established in conjunction with the National Trust, is just such an area and one I know well, as I grew up there as a boy.
The RSPB spends thousands of pounds annually helping to resolve the impacts of recreation on wildlife, for example, in Langstone harbour. With careful management —and I emphasise that—nature reserves can provide enjoyment for people without damaging the environment that they have come to visit, which is precisely the point that we made in the report on coastal zone management and why we hope yet to see a more positive result and response from the Government.
The Solent suffers when there is a pollution incident such as the illegal washing of ships' tanks either in the channel or even in the Solent itself. For some years, I have been calling for greater identification of tankers using the channel as a route so that the culprits can be more easily identified and a greater number of prosecutions brought. English Nature describes the Solent as a top 10 important area for marine wildlife round England. The conservation of the Solent depends on the involvement and support of the local community. The estuaries and harbours are important local assets and their wildlife is becoming increasingly significant as a resource for recreation and tourism.
The existence of all coastal users requires careful zoning of competing needs such as fishing, sailing and


water skiing to avoid potential conflicts and damage to wildlife. This, in, turn requires the active involvement of harbour and planning authorities. The working cooperation of Langstone and Chichester harbours is a good example of best practice.
The Solent and planning causes us particular difficulties. The artificial split of planning functions within the coastal zone into landward and seaward elements is a major barrier to the adoption of an holistic and more effective strategic planning and management approach. I believe, as does the RSPB, that local authority jurisdiction should be extended seawards to allow coverage of marine developments. That approach was endorsed by the Select Committee on the Environment inquiry, but, sadly, it was almost totally rejected, without reasons being given, in the Government's response. We understand from the officials who appeared before the Committee this morning that they have received more than 1,000 representations on the consultative documents, which I hope the Minister will take as strong reinforcement of the Committee's arguments.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds also fully supports other recommendations of the inquiry, such as the development of a national coastal unit with a national coastal strategy and regional coastal groups. In addition, the RSPB believes that local authorities should be able to make byelaws to manage recreation offshore, including zoning sensitive areas.
In its final recommendations on the future local government of the Isle of Wight, the Local Government Commission for England noted the concerns of the three councils involved, supported by Hampshire county council, that the seaward boundaries of the Isle of Wight should be extended further into the Solent because they felt that some control by a public body was needed to protect the public interest.
Will the Government consider extending local government jurisdiction seawards to provide greater protection of the public interest as the Select Committee on the Environment asked and as has been promised this very day in a special note from the Minister's advisers on this point? Will the Solent be made a marine special area for conservation under the new habitats and species directive, and how will the United Kingdom honour the requirements for environmental impact legislation that caters for the cumulative effects of separate projects? Finally, how will the United Kingdom monitor the effects of authorised actions and carry out unbiased environmental audits of those actions when they have been completed?
I can remember many things on the island from my youth. I can remember when there were no marinas and when boats were wooden, but the one thing that I cannot remember, although some of my constituents can, is puffins, those delightful little creatures with the orange beaks, nesting at the Needles. We have not seen them for many years in the Solent. As I grow older and more grey, I shall treat as the ultimate test of the success of our environmental policies the return of puffins to that most famous landmark of the Isle of Wight, the Needles.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) has spoken with great authority about the important issue of wildlife and the Solent and, in particular, about the possible designation of the area under the Ramsar convention. As my hon. Friend made clear, in 1976 the United Kingdom became a signatory to the Ramsar convention, so called because of the meeting venue of Ramsar in Iran. That was an intergovernmental treaty which provides the framework for international co-operation for the conservation of wetland habitats.
The main objectives of the convention are to stem the loss of wetlands now and in the future and to promote the wise use of them. Under the convention, contracting parties such as the United Kingdom are also required to include wetland conservation considerations within their national land-use planning and to promote the conservation of wetlands through the establishment of nature reserves. In addition, we are obliged to designate at least one wetland for inclusion in the "List of Wetlands of International Importance".
There are now more than 600 wetlands of international importance worldwide. We have designated 73 Ramsar areas. Indeed, there are more Ramsar sites in the United Kingdom than anywhere else in the world.
The enormous range of wetland habitats throughout the United Kingdom—from rain-fed northern peatlands through valley bogs and fens to lakes, rivers and estuaries —makes them of particular importance. Clearly, areas of our natural heritage, such as the Solent, are of international importance. We certainly recognise our responsibility to maintain the Solent's diversity of natural heritage of wildlife for future generations.
English Nature, the Government's statutory adviser, is preparing a detailed case for the designation of Southampton water and the Solent as a Ramsar site and special protection area under the EC birds directive. English Nature intends to consult local people, local planning authorities and everyone with relevant concerns before April next year. When the consultations are complete, English Nature will submit its proposals to us. We shall be consulting other Government Departments about the proposed designations at the same time as English Nature consults local people, so that everything can proceed at all possible speed.
We wanted to designate Southampton water and the Solent as a Ramsar site and special protection area this year. Alas, there have been a number of delays which, with the best will in the world and a full commitment to the initiative, have been unavoidable. As I know my hon. Friend.appreciates, the Solent is a complex natural habitat made up of a number of sites of special scientific interest and English Nature has identified further areas which it considers may well merit inclusion in the SPA/Ramsar area of designation. Some of those areas are around the Isle of Wight.
Obviously, the latest ornithological information available will be reviewed and, where appropriate, the SSSI boundaries will be amended accordingly. It is important work, but it is also time consuming. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate our wish to reflect the


fullest possible extent of the wetland habitats and the areas of ornithological interest when the international SPA/Ramsar designations are made.
In the meantime, following the precautionary principle, we protect special protection areas in the same manner as designated sites. Potential Ramsar sites are given similar protection. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will normally call in all planning applications, both within SSSI boundaries and outside, which are likely significantly to affect sites of international importance and recognised national importance. Potential Ramsar sites and SPAs are rigorously protected. We are determined to protect their nature conservation. Only reasons of overriding national public interest can interfere with the protection afforded by such designation.
I fully support everything that my hon. Friend said about the importance of nature conservation in the Southampton water and Solent potential SPA/Rarnsar areas. The proposed areas consist of a series of estuaries with extensive mudflats and associated salt marshes. The mudflats support large numbers of wintering waterfowl and breeding gulls and terns. In particular, they support internationally important numbers of wintering clarkbellied Brent geese and nationally important numbers of six or seven different types of waders and different types of breeding Sandwich tern, common tern and little tern.
I understand that there have been some concerns at English Nature's proposals to notify new SSSIs in the area and expand water and the Solent. Clearly, a balance has to be struck between those who gain their living from the land or sea and who are concerned that statutory designation might impede their ability to husband their livelihoods and the wildlife and conservation interests inherent in an important habitat. I hope that, by carrying out extensive discussions and consultation with local people, English Nature can come forward with proposals that command local support.
The measures that we have taken provide the most comprehensive legislative framework for nature conservation ever seen in this country and stand comparison with the measures taken by any of our European partners or anywhere in the developed world. The new EC habitats directive comes into force this June. That directive lists a number of habitat types, such as coastal areas like the Solent, for which special areas of conservation must be designated under the directive. Those, together with the special protection areas classified under the birds directive, will make up the Natura 2000 network of designated areas. The habitats directive lists criteria that must be applied in the process of selection of the sites.
At present, to ensure that we comply with the directive, the statutory nature conservation advisers, co-ordinated by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, are working on an assessment of the United Kingdom nature conservation resource. That work is well under way, but it will still be a little time before we are able to announce which sites we consider may, subject to consultation, qualify for inclusion on our national list. So, understandably, it is difficult to say now whether the Solent will be recommended as qualifying as an SAC in its own right under the habitats directive. Of course it will definitely in any event be part of the Natura 2000 network by virtue of its impending SPA designation under the birds directive.
We are fully committed to the implementation of the habitats directive. Last year, we set out our proposals. We made it clear that regulations would be laid before the

House to transpose the directive into national law and, because the habitats directive amends the birds directive, such regulations will also cover SPAs.
There have been many responses to the consultation paper. We have been carefully considering them, and will shortly introduce the regulations. They will place a clear duty on the relevant Secretaries of State, the nature conservation agencies and other bodies to comply with the directives by using their existing powers, amended and augmented as necessary. The regulations will also make provision to amend the town and country planning legislation.

Mr. Barry Field: Do I take that to mean that my hon. Friend is promising us legislation that will put back the clock to before the Alverstone marsh case, which meant that the SSSI designation was not everything that everyone thought that it was in terms of protecting a site?

Mr. Baldry: I hope that I had made it clear that we are fully committed to ensuring that the birds directive and the habitats directive are implemented in full and that full protection is accorded to SSSIs. I also hope that I have made it clear that in so far as there has been any delay in implementing an SPA/Ramsar designation in the Solent and Southampton water, it has simply been because we want to ensure that the full extent of those SSSIs are included within that designation.
For marine sites, our proposals are to create a framework for the various bodies with jurisdiction in the areas concerned to work together to prepare a scheme of management to ensure the necessary conservation objectives. Such bodies must include the sea estuaries committees and harbour authorities as well as English Nature and will also include recreational interests. I am sure that such an approach will ensure that all concerned can pursue their interests in ways are compatible with the sustainable management of the areas involved. My hon. Friend, as commodore of the House of Commons yacht squadron and a naturalist, and as someone concerned with the livelihood of the Isle of Wight, has made it clear that it is perfectly possible to reconcile all those interests and still ensure good nature conservation.
My hon. Friend has asked whether the Government will consider extending local authority jurisdiction seawards. Among other things, the Select Committee on the Environment, of which my hon. Friend is a member, issued a report on coastal zone protection and planning which called for a more comprehensive and integrated approach to coastal zone management. The Government welcomed the report as a valuable contribution to the debate and drew attention to a number of initiatives such as new planning and policy guidance and the publication of a strategy for coastal defence in England and Wales.
The' coastal planning guidance, published in September 1992, is the most important statement on planning our coast for 20 years. It is the first time that we have set out comprehensive planning guidance covering both the open coast and the estuaries of England and Wales. Development should now be limited to that which genuinely needs to be located there and guided towards areas that are already largely developed. Making provision for development in appropriate locations is essential if we are to safeguard what is best about our natural coastline for future generations. The advice also encourages a high level


of co-ordination between local authorities and interest groups to develop plans for stretches of coast, particularly estuaries.
As my hon. Friend has said, officials from my Department gave evidence today to the Environment Select Committee. I am sure that he is right when he says that their evidence was positive and constructive. I am sure that they clearly set out established policy on our approach to enhancing coastal protection.
My hon. Friend also asked what specific actions we will take to implement the new guidance on the wise use of wetlands. As he said, resolution 5.6 of the conference of the contracting parties to the Ramsar convention called on contracting parties to implement the applicable provisions of the guidance. The guidance urges, among other things, contracting parties to promote policy, including the use of legislation to implement wise use. The guidance on wise use is designated for contracting parties around the world, including developing countries. Our existing policies and legislation, as set out in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" and our biodiversity action plan, embody the principles that the guidance seeks to promote.
Important wetlands, particularly Ramsar sites, are protected by, among other things, the SSSI network, which we have already discussed. The Government and the statutory nature conservation bodies that have responsibility for protecting SSSIs are fully conversant with, and committed to, the "wise use" concept, and forthcoming guidance and the new planning and policy guidance note on nature conservation will have regard to the use of wetlands, and our land use planning system should, and will, ensure that all relevant considerations are taken into account in determining development proposals.
Government policies ensure, and we shall ensure, that the nature conservation of Southampton water and the Solent marshes will receive strict protection. Ramsar and SPA designation will give the clearest possible recognition to the international importance of the Solent. English Nature knows of the importance that we attach to the protection and designation of internationally important wildlife habitats. I am glad to say that English Nature has been provided with additional funding to accelerate the designation of Southampton water and the Solent, as well as other sites, because we are determined to implement both the EC birds directive and the Ramsar convention as speedily as possible.
We are in no doubt about the importance of wetlands to wildlife and to our national heritage. For that reason, the United Kingdom has designated more Ramsar sites than any other country. Further areas such as Southampton water and the Solent marshes will follow. We believe firmly in the wise use of wetlands, a concept central to the Ramsar convention. Sustainability can perhaps best be defined as
the human use of a wetland so that it may yield the greatest continuous benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations.
The arrangements that are in place in the UK for both the designation and protection of internationally important wildlife sites protect the legitimate interests of local people and the need to conserve our natural heritage for the sake of our children.
I am sure that we can achieve all that. I hope that, in all our life times, we will see the puffins return to the Needles.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.